BLAW CASES

63 CASES In each case listed below you will be responsible for understanding...

1. Legal question 2. Ruling of the court, i.e. what rule of law can one derive from the court's decision? 3. Legal reasoning, i.e. main reasons for the court's ruling 4. Key precedent cases discussed (if any)

Edgewater Motels v. Gatzke

AGENCY & FIDUCIARY DUTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Edgewater Motels is suing Arlen Gatzke for causing a fire that resulted in $330, 260 of damages. Gatzke was staying at the motel as part of his "24 hour a day man" work with Walgreens. One night, a cigarette he failed to dispose of properly caused a widespread fire. LEGAL QUESTION Should Walgreens have vicarious liability for the fire damages caused by its employee because it was within the scope of employment? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because Gatzke was on the job (on the interest of Walgreens even back at the hotel because he was filling out reimbursements. He was working 24 hrs at an office (hotel room) and smoking was just a small break from his activities. PRECEDENT Employers are vicariously liable for their worker's negligence within the scope of employment.

Edinburg Volunteer Fire Company v. Danko Emergency Equipment

AGENCY & FIDUCIARY DUTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Edinburg wanted to buy a firetruck from Danko. Ron Fahd was the independent contractor who was supposed to facilitate the sales. Fahd gave Edinburg a lower price ($158,900 -$2,000) in exchange for a $55,000 prepayment and also forged papers to show a selling price of $158,300. Fahd ran off with the prepayment and then committed suicide. Edinburg is suing Danko for lost money under the premise that they negligently hired Fahd. LEGAL QUESTION Did Fahd have the authority to represent Danko at that time? REASONING OF THE COURT No, the information (forms, price) that Danko gave Fahd does not include the power to enter a contract. The plaintiffs should have double checked Fahd's credentials. PRECEDENT Buyers should make sure of the authenticity of the person who is making the deal.

O'Shea v. Welch

AGENCY & FIDUCIARY DUTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED While Welch (Osco employee) was driving to an Osco district office, he hit O'Shea while pulling into a service station. O'Shea sues Welch and also Osco. LEGAL QUESTION Was Welch under the scope of employment when he hit O'Shea? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, because Welched turned into the service station with the intention of checking his car which he uses for company purposes. There was only a slight deviation. PRECEDENT Even with slight deviations, companies are still liable for their employee's negligence under the scope of employment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, majority & dissenting opinions

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Citizen United is a nonprofit organization that ran a whole anti-Hillary campaign complete with ads and a movie. The FEC banned these actions under 2 U.S.C 441b (no political advocacy 30 days before primary and 60 days before general). Citizen United is questioning the constitutionality of 441b. LEGAL QUESTION Is BCRA 441b constitutional? REASONING OF THE COURT No, corporations also have the right to free speech. The law in question is too broad and too restricting. PRECEDENT Corporations do not to form separate Political Action Committees for political advocacy. DISSENTING OPINION Corporations are different from human speakers and therefore are protected as broadly from the First Amendment.

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED New Hampshire tried to take over Dartmouth College. The trustee of the college sued to gain back control of their school. LEGAL QUESTION Are the three acts of legislature to make Dartmouth a public institution constitutional? REASONING OF THE COURT No, Dartmouth was established through a contract that the crown gave and existed before the NH government even existed. It is a corporation with its own rights and also subject to its own donations. PRECEDENT The state cannot take arbitrarily take over a private corporation.

Meinhard v. Salmon

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Salmon got a lease from Geery for Hotel Bristol. Meinhard helped with funding the $200,000 lease. Salmon later entered into an expansion project for the area and didn't mention it to Meinhard. When Meinhard found out, he wanted a part of the deal because they were in a partnership LEGAL QUESTION Is Salmon obligated to include Meinhard in the deal because they were co-adventurers? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because the new lease built on top of what was existing in the old lease. Therefore, Salmon had a fiduciary duty to include Meinhard in the deal. PRECEDENT Co-adventurers are be notified when there is an extension on the lease that both parties contributed to.

Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The Geringers went on vacation to the Wildhorn Ranch resort. Diane Geringer's husband and son died in a paddleboating incident and Geringer is suing Wildhorn Ranch for damages. Watters was the original owner or the ranch and even after he gave it to a corporation (Wildhorn Ranch Inc.), he still stayed very involved in the operations (including checking the safety of the boats). The court found split up the fault of negligence: 0% to Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 70% to M.R. Watters, 20% to Les Bretzke, 5% to Diane G., and 5% to William G. LEGAL QUESTION Can Watters be considered as the corporate alter-ego of Wildhorn and therefore also responsible for the deaths of Geringer's family? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because 1. Watters acted as though the corporation did not exist 2. His actions with the corporations show personal interest 3. There would be injustice if the court considered Watters and Wildhorn Ranch separate entities. Watters knew about the boat defects. PRECEDENT Owners with a huge personal interest in a corporation's operations are responsible for any damages it caused.

Jones v. Star Credit Corp.

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Welfare recipients (plaintiff), after talking with a salesman from Your Shop At Home Service, agreed to buy a $900 home freezer unit on August 31, 1965. After adding up additional charges (time credit charges, credit life insurance, credit property insurance, and tax), the resulting bill was $1234.80. Jones has already paid $619.88 but now Star Credit Corp claims that due to the added time, they now need to pay $819.81 more. The retail value of the fridge is $300. LEGAL QUESTION Is the transaction and contract between Jones and Star Credit Corp unconscionable under terms defined in the Uniform Commercial Code (section 2-302)? UCC 1. If the court finds that the agreement "unconscionable at the time it was made", the court can refuse to enforce the contract or only enforce the contract portions that do not have the unconscionable clause. 2. Both parties can bring evidence (commercial setting, effects, purpose) to the court to help the court decide. REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the agreement was unconscionable because the welfare recipients (poor and illiterate) were being taken advantage of. The court doesn't consider fraud but focuses on the sale of a $300 retail value freezer unit for $900 (or with credit charges and $18 sales tax, $1,439.49). This "shocked the conscience of the court" which is substantial unconscionability. 1. Value disparity. There is a great disparity between 300 and 900. Credit payments are supposed to be provide a hedge to defaults but this was not used that way responsibly. 2. Purchasers had limited financial resources 3. Gross inequality of bargaining power and "lack of understanding of bargaining terms"(procedural unconscionability) Other cases 1. American Home Improvement v. Machlver (supra): Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled a home improvement contract for $2568 ($809.60 interest + carrying charges, $800 saleman's commission) as unconscionable. 2. Matter of State of New York v. ITM (supra : Vacuum cleaner costing $140 and sold for $749 ($920.52) by credit - unconscionable. 3. Frostifresh Corp v. Reynoso (supra): Unconscionable to sell a refrigerator costing $349 for $900 (or $245.88) credit. Plaintiffs get to keep the freezer for what they paid. PRECEDENT If the contract terms for an item are grossly unequal in terms of price and underlying value, the contract is unconscionable.

Marvin v. Marvin

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Michelle Marvin and Defendant Lee Marvin lived together for seven years without officially marrying. Michelle believes that they created an oral agreement on October 1964 where they agreed to combined their earnings, shared property and act as husband and wife. She is suing to get half the property because now they are separated. LEGAL QUESTION Could an unmarried man and woman create an express contract regarding property and earnings while living with each other? REASONING OF THE COURT In Trutalli v. Meraviglia, supra, 2015 Cal. 698, the man sued the woman he was living with for quiet title to the land that he brought while in a relationship with her. The two unmarried people lived together for 11 year and had two children. The courts considered this a lawful agreement and didn't consider it for an immoral relation standpoint. Also in Vallera v. Vallera (1943), if two people decide to live together as husband and wife and agree to share earnings and property, this contract must be honored. (1) Family Law Act can't decide between non-marital relationship cases, only court can (2) Courts will enforce contracts between un-married partners unless their relationship is based solely on sexual services (3) Courts must find out if there was an express contract, implied contact, joint venture or agreement of partnership and employ quantum meruit (amount of money to be paid when the contract doesn't list money). PRECEDENT Agreements to share earnings and property can be held to non-legally married couples who live together.

Lamle v. Mattel

CONTRACTS Lamie invented the Farook game and Mattel is the company negotiating with Lamie on distribution rights. After agreeing to negotiate, they made an oral contract to do the deal and Mike Buchner ended the email with his name. Mattel later backed out after seeing Farook's performance at the Pre-Toy Fair Show. LEGAL QUESTION Did Mattel breach it's contact with Lamie? REASONING OF THE COURT Although the oral agreement the two parties had is not considered a contract, the signed email outlining the terms is. PRECEDENT An email can be considered as part of a written contract if there is a signature by a representative at the end.

Donovan v. RRL Corp.

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED RRL Corp advertised a car in the newspaper but the newspaper printed the sales price wrong. Donovan tried to buy the car for the advertised price at the dealers but he was refused. He sued. LEGAL QUESTION Can RRL take back the offer for the contract because it was an unilateral mistake? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes. Although the Vehicle Code section 11713.1 requires sellers to sell the vehicle at the advertised price, RRL can take back this contract. The defendant was not aware of the mistake before the plaintiff made the error and the contract is procedurally and substantively unconscionable for RRL Corp. Advertisements are an invitation to negotiate. PRECEDENT Contracts can be rescinded based on an unilateral mistake.

Strawn v. Canuso

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED 150 families of Vorhees Township are suing Canetic Corporation and Canuso Management Corporation for failing to tell them that their new homes is located near Buzby landfill. They argue that because of this misrepresentation, they paid more than what the homes were actually worth. LEGAL QUESTION Are the developers and brokers legally obligated to disclose customers about the presence of a toxic landfill near the houses? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, they need to tell customers of everything that might affect property prices. The developer knew this information beforehand but caveat emptor (buyer beware) does not apply to this situation because the information was hard to find out until you already moved in. PRECEDENT Real estate workers are required to disclose information that may affect housing prices to buyers if the information cannot be discovered by buyers under reasonable inspection.

Beer Capital Distributing v. Guinness Bass Import Company

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Beer Capitol had distribution rights to GBIC from 1992 to 2000 in Wisconsin. In a meeting Beer Capitol thought a question about if they willing to pay up to nine time earnings constituted as promise that GBIC would give them a contract this year and made decisions based off of that "promise". Beer Capitol sued GBIC in the district court under Wisconsin's Fair Dealership law, promissory estoppel and contract breach. GBIC got summary judgement and the case was dismissed. Beer Capital appeals. LEGAL QUESTION Can the GBIC's rescinding of distribution rights be regarded as promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment? REASONING OF THE COURT The court affirmed with the district court's judgement. There was no evidence of a promise and GBIC never explicitly said that they would give distribution rights to Beer Capitol. GBIC received no enrichment from the actions of Beer Capitol, which was under the impression that they had the distribution rights. PRECEDENT For an oral contract to be valid, both parties must clearly agree to enter the contract.

Hadley v. Baxendale

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED City Steam Mills needed a new crank shaft to operate their mill. The defendant delivered it late. The plaintiff is suing for lost profits. LEGAL QUESTION Since the parties did not consider the possibility of loss profits due to late delivery when the contract was made, can the plaintiff still sue for lost profits? REASONING OF THE COURT No, the loss of profits from late delivery was could not be "reasonably" considered when making the contract. The situation of late delivery losses was not clearly stated. PRECEDENT To recover losses, the parties must both understand the consequences of late deliveries during the formation of the contract.

Osprey LLC v. Kelly-Moore Paint

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Osprey required Osprey to give the company notice that they are going to renew the lease 6 months before the lease ended. On the last day, Kelly-Moore sent the documents by fax and express mail but Osprey claims to not have received it on time. Kelly-Moore stayed at the store and Osprey tries to remove them. LEGAL QUESTION Is sending the paperwork by fax on the deadline day a sufficient way of honoring the lease renewal option? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, because exact wording on how the contract will be delivered says "may" so there is not a definite binding. Fax is a fast way to send information PRECEDENT If you use another strategy to hand in a notice, the notice will still be valid.

Leonard v. Pepsico

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Leonard took the Pepsi Commercial advertising Pepsi Stuff seriously and thought that he could actually get a Harrier Jet for seven million Pepsi Points. He sent a check in for $700,000 to buy enough Pepsi Points to get the jet. Pepsi did not offer the jet in their catalogue and returned the check. LEGAL QUESTION Does the content of the advertisement count as a offer? REASONING OF THE COURT No, the offer was clearly a joke. There is no way that Pepsi would give away a 21 million dollar worth jet. No reasonable person would have believed that the offer was real. Pepsi was given summary judgement. 1) It was an advertisement, not an offer 2) No reasonable person would believe the offer 3) Under the NY Statue of Frauds, contracts more than $500 have to be written down PRECEDENT Advertisements can only be considered as offers if the terms are clear of specific actions to take to act on the offer.

Lucy v. Zehmer

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Lucy wanted to buy Ferguson farm for $50,000 from Zehmer, who, after a couple of drinks, wrote up and signed a contract along with his wife agreeing. Zehmer claims he was drunk and the contract does not have to be honored. LEGAL QUESTION Does the offer Zehmer made constitute as a contract or as a joke? REASONING OF THE COURT Zehmer was not drunk enough for the contract to be invalid. He was able to rewrite the contract and talk. Even if Zehmer meant it as a joke, the wording he chose is evidence that he entered a contract. PRECEDENT Contracts are based on words said, not underlying intentions.

Vokes v. Arthur Murray

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Vokes, flattered by employees in the Arthur Murray Dance Schools, believed that she could be a professional dancer and signed up for dance lessons worth $31,000. She turned out to not be a great dancer and tried to cancel the 2300 she had left by accusing Murray of misrepresentation. Murray said that what they gave were opinions not facts. LEGAL QUESTION Are the opinions that Murray School of Dance gave, considered facts and fraud? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, since Murray School of Dance has more knowledge about dance, the statements can be taken as facts and misrepresentation. Murray was skilled enough and received enough business from Vokes that he had the responsibility to give an accurate review of her dance skills. PRECEDENT The opinion of a party who has superior knowledge may be considered a fact in deciding misrepresentation.

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Red Owl promised that it would give Hoffman a store for $18,000. As the process went on, the price kept on increasing. The Plaintiff Hoffman sued Red Owl for damages they he faced during this process. LEGAL QUESTION Is the relationship between Red Owl and Hoffman one of promissory estoppel (plaintiff being hurt from acting upon false promises of defendant). REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, because Red Owl told Hoffman to take certain measure so the promise was reasonably expected. Hoffman sold his bakery and inventory for a $2000 loss. PRECEDENT If a formal contract is absent, then promissory estoppel can still be applied.

Stambovsky v. Ackley

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Stambovsky bought a house from Ackley and then sued her for failing to tell him the house was haunted. He wanted the contract to be null. LEGAL QUESTION Does failure to inform a buyer that a house is haunted constitute a valid reason to cancel the contract? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, because the information of the paranormal activities of the house can't be discovered under a reasonable inspection. Ackley has an obligation to inform Stambovsky because she already informed the public through Readers Digest. PRECEDENT A buyer has to inform the seller if a house is haunted.

Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff is Shirley MacLaine Parker who entered into a contract with fox to act in " Bloomer Girl" for $750,000. Fox decided not to make the movie and offered the actress another project called "Big Country, Big Man" which would be based in Australia and gave Parker less control. Parker did not want to take the new project and sued to get her stated salary contracted under "Bloomer Girl" and also for damages that occurred because Fox canceled their contract. LEGAL QUESTION Can Parker still recover damages although she was offered a substitute role? REASONING OF THE COURT Fox can't mitigate damages because the substitute offer they gave to Parker was inferior because of location (Australia v. California) and control. PRECEDENT An inferior substitute cannot be used to lessen damages incurred through a breach of contract.

135 East 57th Street v. Daffy's

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff is suing Daffy's for not giving the renewal lease on time and still staying on the property. Daffy's argued that it had done a lot of work to alter the property and would have to sustain heavy losses if they got kicked out. LEGAL QUESTION Can Daffy's still stay on the property under equitable relief? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because Daffy's was acting in good faith. The lease renewal was not misdated on purpose. If the store closed, then Daffy's will have a hard time relocating and will have to lay off 114 employees. PRECEDENT Given the circumstances of equitable relief, late lease renewals must be considered.

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, majority & dissenting opinions

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff is suing the defendant for $3,483,46 for the construction of a house. The defendant refuses to pay because the plaintiff did use the correct "standard pipe of Reading Manufacture". LEGAL QUESTION Has Jacob & Youngs substantially performed their construction contract? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes. The plaintiff did not purposefully use the wrong pipes and the pipes they place in were identical in quality. It was unreasonable for the plaintiff to replace the pipes, the process would have been too costly. The damages should just be the based on the cost of the error instead of fixing the error. PRECEDENT When there are cases where a small error takes too much resources to fix, the damage payment should not be the replacement cost but the cost incurred because of a value difference. DISSENT Justice McLaughlin dissents by saying the defendant has a right to what is in the contract. The plaintiff has an obligation to fix the mistake no matter the cost.

Universal Grading Service v. eBay

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Universal Grading service and other plaintiffs pursued a class action lawsuit against eBay, American Numismatic Association, Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc, Barry Stuppler and Company for violating Sherman Act antitrust provisions. LEGAL QUESTION Is eBay's 2003 User Agreement unconscionable? REASONING OF THE COURT No it is not procedurally unconscionable because the plaintiff has other choices he can select. It is also not substantively unconscionable because although it favors eBay, it is not one sided. PRECEDENT User agreements can heavily favor the company and still be considered conscionable.

Hamer v. Sidway

CONTRACTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED William Story I agreed to give his nephew, William Story II $5000 if his nephew refrains from drinking, smoking, gambling and swearing until he is 21. After the nephew completed these conditions, William Story agreed to give the money to his nephew later in his life with interest. After William story died (without giving his nephew the money), William Story II gave the right to the $5000 to his wife, who then gave it to Hammer. Hammer tried to claim the money from the estate but was refused. She sues Sidway, the executer of the estate. LEGAL QUESTION Was a contract created when William Story II gave up his rights to do certain activities? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the person who made the contract doesn't need to benefit. Since William Story gave up something, the contract is enforceable. PRECEDENT A contract can be established when one party agrees to give up something for another party.

Brown v. Board of Education

COURTS & PRECEDENT PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED African American students want to be admitted to schools on a non-segregated basis LEGAL QUESTION Does the segregation in schools violate the 14th Amendment of equal protection? REASONING OF THE COURT The segregation between children based on race in schools (with other facilities and factors the same), deprives the children of the same educational opportunities. The separation gives a message of inferiority to the African American students and thus violates the equal protection laws. PRECEDENT The ruling stated that Plessy v. Ferguson 's separate but equal clause cannot apply to education.

Plessy v. Ferguson, majority & dissenting opinions

COURTS & PRECEDENT PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Homer Plessy, a man who is 7/8th European 1/8th African American, was still considered black under Louisiana legislation. He was detained for sitting in a whites-only car and wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the Louisiana Acts 1890 for separate railway carriages. LEGAL QUESTION Does the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races, Acts 1890, No.111, p.153 violate the Constitution's Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment. REASONING OF THE COURT The court (7-1) rejected Plessy's statement that the Louisiana law violated the Thirteenth Amendment (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. In the Civil Rights cases, 109 U.S. 3,24, stated if a person refused to serve a person of color, it is not right but it is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteen Amendment (prohibiting certain restrictive legislation) was not violated because legal distinction does not mean legal inequality. Since the cars where "separate but equal," no rights were violated. PRECEDENT The "separate but equal" clause was used in future U.S. law decision until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) DISSENTING/ CONCURRING OPINION Mr. Justice Harlan dissents. Since the railroad is a public function (Olcott v. The Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678,694), colored and whites should be able to wherever they want on it because they don't separate colored or whites on the streets, courtrooms or in galleries. The white race deems itself as the dominant race and made the Louisiana law to make the colored race to feel inferior. If the Chinese is allowed to sit with whites, why not the blacks? Louisiana violates the personal liberty that the Constitution provides.

McBoyle v. United States

COURTS & PRECEDENT PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED McBoyle helped transport a stolen plane and was charged under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. He claimed that he could not be charged under that act since aircraft was not included under it. LEGAL QUESTION Does the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act include aircraft? REASONING OF THE COURT No, since Acts like Tariff Act of 1930 did not include aircraft under the definition of a vehicle. PRECEDENT Currently laws can't be stretched at will to fill new definitions.

Florida v. Jardines, majority & dissenting opinions

CRIMINAL LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED A police officer used a police dog to determine whether Jardines had marijuana in his house. The dog detected marijuana at the doorway and afterwards Detective Pedraja got a warrant to search the house and found cannabis. LEGAL QUESTION Whether warrantless dog sniff violated 4th Amendment as unreasonable? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, because the porch is considered a part of a person's property and home, where privacy is expected. PRECEDENT Police have to obtain a warrant first before intruding on a person's private property, even if they don't go in. DISSENTING/ CONCURRING OPINION (IF PROVIDED) Dissenting Opinion, Justice Alito: Odors from the house can be detected to public areas so there is reasonable suspicion. The police just walked the dog to the doorway to sniff, he didn't conduct a whole through investigation of the property outside the house. He could legally use a walkway to the house like others such as the mailman. There was no intrusion.

Board of Education v. Earls

CRIMINAL LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Lindsey Earls challenged the The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy that was implemented in her school district in Tecumseh, Oklahoma. LEGAL QUESTION Does the school's random, warrantless & suspicionless drug testing policy violate the 4th Amendment As an unreasonable search + seizure REASONING OF THE COURT No because the school has the responsibility over students and their extracurricular involvement. Drugs are a nationwide concern and schools want to keep students safe. Students don't have to join the extra-curricular activities if they don't want to be tested. PRECEDENT Students have limited privacy in schools since schools can act in the best interest overall for the safety of students.

Riley v. California

CRIMINAL LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The police stopped Riley because of the expired registration tags on his car. After finding evidence linking him to the Blood Gang, the police searched his phone and used the information on it to connect him to a past shooting. The police took and used a Brima Wurie's phone to find his house. After getting a warrant, they raided his house and found drugs, leading to his arrest. LEGAL QUESTION Does searching (no warrant) for information on a suspect's cellphone violate the 4th Amendment? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the cell contains a lot of private information. Unless it is for the safety of the officers or the evidence is in danger of being destroyed, the police needs a warrant. PRECEDENT Police need a warrant to search people's phones.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch

EMPLOYMENT LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Abercrombie has a look policy for the employees they hire. Part of this look policy includes no caps. Samantha Elauf wears a headdress because of her Muslim beliefs. Although she meets the qualifications, A&F doesn't hire her because of her headress LEGAL QUESTION Did Abercrombie and Fitch violate Elauf's Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1954) rights which state that employers can't refuse to hire people based on their religious beliefs if they can honor an employee's religious belief without too much trouble? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because Elauf had all the job qualification and her headscarf did not violate her job duties. The only reason why she didn't get the job was the headscarf but that action is a violation of Title VII. PRECEDENT Employers must accommodate and respect employees' religious dress to a certain degree.

Chadwick v. Wellpoint

EMPLOYMENT LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Chadwick was a top employee at Wellpoint, an insurance company. She was a great candidate for a promotion and was on track until the company discovered that she had 6 year old triplets. Afterwards, the company made various comments discriminating her position as a mom. She ended up getting passed over for the promotion. Chadwick sued. LEGAL QUESTION Did Wellpoint violate Title VII (sex discrimination) by passing over Chadwick for promotion? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, Chadwick was extremely qualified and her family life did not influence work. Only after the company learned about her family situation, did they have a bias against her. PRECEDENT If a woman's family life does not affect performance, the company can't use that against her when considering promotions.

Harris v. Forklift

EMPLOYMENT LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Teresa Harris, a manager at Forklift System, was constantly harassed by Hardy at work because she was a woman. Some past phrases he used include: "You're a woman, what do you know?" "We need a man as the rental manager," "dumb woman" and "go to Holiday Inn to negotiate a raise". Harris talked to Hardy about the problem and Hardy apologized and promised to stop, only he didn't. Harris quit and sued Forklift for having an abusive work environment. The US District Court for the Middle District of Tennesee - "no" because Hardy's comment although rude weren't "so severe as to be expected to serious affect Harris' wellbeing." It did not reduce Harris's work performance. LEGAL QUESTION Did Forklift discriminate against Harris under the "abusive work environment" of Title VII? REASONING OF THE COURT The Court had to determine whether "an abusive work environment" has to "seriously affect psychological well-being" or cause physical injury? In Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart (1978), if the workplace has "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult: there is an "abusive environment". PRECEDENT Courts must apply the reasonable person standard in determining whether there is an "abusive environment" rather than waiting for the plaintiff to have psychological damage.

United States v. Lopez

FEDERAL, STATE & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Federal grand jury charged a 12th grade Texas High School student for carrying a .38 caliber handgun and bullets. LEGAL QUESTION Does the Commerce Clause give the government power to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990? REASONING OF THE COURT The government does not have power to pass the Gun Free School Zones Act. The situation does not apply to interstate commerce and commerce clause cannot be stretched to fit the setting of public schools. This is a slippery slope. PRECEDENT Futures cases cannot stretch the commerce clause out of its intended meaning for dealing with interstate affairs.

McDonald v. Chicago

FEDERAL, STATE & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED McDonald and others wanted to keep handguns to protect themselves in their Chicago towns due to increasing crime rates. Chicago law requires handguns to be registered but the City of Chicago has not been issuing any new handgun permits and was working to ban legal handguns too. LEGAL QUESTION Does the right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment) for individuals protected under the Due Process Clause, and Privileges and Immunities Clause (Fourteenth Amendment)? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the States have to respect the individual right to bear arms under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bearing arms is a fundamental right and handguns are used for self-defense. PRECEDENT In future cases, there is an individual right to bear arms.

Roe v. Wade, majority, concurring & dissenting opinions

FEDERAL, STATE & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Roe challenged whether Texas strict abortion laws were constitutional LEGAL QUESTION Is this Texas Criminal Law unconstitutional because it violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the Due Process Clause protects Roe's right to an abortion. However, the state can regulate certain aspects depending on the on the trimester of pregnancy. PRECEDENT Women has the right to obtain an abortion in the first trimester. The state can regulate abortion procedures in the second and even ban it in the third if it threatens the mother's life. DISSENTING/ CONCURRING OPINION (IF PROVIDED) Mr. Justice Stewart, Concurring: Precedent court decisions have determined that the Due Process Clause protects the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life" Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Dissenting: The right to abortion cannot be justified under the right to privacy protections. Abortion is still controversial. The original drafters did not consider this topic at all.

MGM Studios v. Grokster

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Grokster enables peer-to-peer network sharing for electronic files. 90% of the files on Grokster's Fast Track system is copyrighted. MGM sued Grokster for copyright infringement but the lower courts granted summary judgment to Grokster because it was third parties committing the infringement so Grokster may not know that it was being committed. MGM appeals. LEGAL QUESTION Is Grokster liable for the copyright infringement of its third party users? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because the platform encouraged and earned money from the infringement. It participated in contributory infringement and did not take any actions to stop it. In Sony Corp b. Universal City Studios, Sony showed there many other non-infringement uses to their product. Grokster is only 10% non-infringement use. PRECEDENT A sharing platform is responsible for the infringement activity committed by third party members if that activity makes up the majority of platform use.

Mattel v. MCA Records

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Mattel owns the rights to the doll Barbie. A Danish band, Aqua created a song called Barbie Girl in their Aquarium album. The song portrays Barbie as a bimbo and Mattel sued MCA Records for using and harming their Barbie trademark. LEGAL QUESTION Is the Barbie parody song an infringement on Barbie's trademark? REASONING OF THE COURT The song was a parody and is protected under free speech (First Amendment). It is outside of trademark protections (becoming like Band-Aid and Rolls Royce). It does not dilute the brand because clearly it is not from the Barbie producers themselves. The song had a purpose beyond just commercial use, it makes fun of the values that Barbie dolls seem to promote. The FTDA has three exemptions and this case falls into the third one: "comparative advertising, news reporting and commentary, and non-commercial use". PRECEDENT Parodies are exempt from the trademark law.

Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Suntrust Bank hold the copyrights to Gone with the Wind by Marget Mitechell. Houghton Mifflin's The Wind Done Gone is critique of GWTW and uses major scenes and characters from the original story. Suntrust sued for preliminary injunction against Houghton Mifflin. LEGAL QUESTION Does Houghton Mifflin have a right to publish TWGD as a fair use of GWTW? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, TWGD is an expression of the work GWTW and also considered a parody. The factors considered for fair use were: 1. Purpose of the use 2. Nature of the work 3. How much is used 4. Copyright effect/ value PRECEDENT Parodies are fair uses and exempt from copyright regulations.

Kirtsaeng v. Wiley

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Suppap Kirtsaeng is an international student from Thailand who studied math at Cornell and USC. While he was here he bought legally made books from Thailand and resold them in the US. John Wiley Sons, a publisher, sues Kirtasaeng. LEGAL QUESTION Does the "first sale" doctrine apply to foreign bought books? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, geography doesn't matter as long as the book is legal. Once a company sells a book, it no longer has the rights to sell to resell the book again. PRECEDENT The "first sale" doctrine is not limited to geography.

International Shoe v. Washington

JURISDICTION, LITIGATION & ADR PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff is a Delaware corporation who has its main business activities in St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff does not have an office, sale contracts, merchandise stock, or deliveries in Washington. The plaintiff employed 11-13 salesman residing in Washington to work under sales managers in St. Louis. Washington sued the company to get unpaid contributions to the unemployment fund required under the Washington Unemployment Compensation Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Washington Court decision that the state had the jurisdiction to bring the company to court. LEGAL QUESTION Whether the due process clause of the 14th amendment is violated by Washington State Courts exercising pers. Jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation? REASONING OF THE COURT The State of Washington did have personal jurisdiction because the corporation had minimum contacts in Washington State. They had employees which signified a systematic presence in the state. Since the business has a presence in the state, it should be also subject to taxes. The due process clause was not violated. PRECEDENT For future interstate commerce cases, business who have "presence" ("systematic and continuous" operations) in another state are subject to that state's taxes.

Attaway v. Omega

JURISDICTION, LITIGATION & ADR PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff, Attaway of Idaho, brought a Porsche on Ebay from Omega of Indiana. Attaway paid $5000 for the car over PayPal but tried to claim a refund when he saw the Porsche was "significantly not-as-described". After a denial, Attaway successfully negotiated with Mastercard to refund the payment money. Omega then sued Attaway in Indiana for $5900 and Attaway's motion of absence of personal jurisdiction was denied. Attaway appealed. LEGAL QUESTION Do the Indiana courts have personal jurisdiction over resident Attaway? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, when Attaway bought the car, he was aware of the location of where the car was from (since he needed to move the car from Indiana to Idaho). Attaway conducted business in Indiana because he also paid someone to pick up the car for him. This satisfies the minimum contacts provision. PRECEDENT Buyers of vehicles from other states can be sued in court of the seller's state.

Holmes v. Lerner

PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED When Lerner got the idea and created Urban Decay, she entered into an oral contract with Holmes to be a partner. Lerner then kicked out Holmes out of the company. LEGAL QUESTION Does Holmes have a legal stake in Urban Decay? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because Holmes made the first nail polish color by mixing two colors she found. Holmes helped Lerner develop Urban Decay. Although there was no formal contract, the fact that PRECEDENT Employers are vicariously liable for their worker's negligence within the scope of employment.

Daniell v. Ford Motor

PRODUCT LIABILITY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Daniell was locked inside (9 days) a 1973 Ford trunk and now sues for psychological trauma and physical injuries. LEGAL QUESTION Can Ford be held responsible for Daniell's injuries? REASONING OF THE COURT No. Daniell knew what she was doing as she was trying to commit suicide. Going into the trunk of course can result in being accidentally locked in the trunk. Manufacturers can't foresee the event of someone willingly going into the trunk to be locked in. The trunk wasn't used as intended. PRECEDENT Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for liable if their products are used outside of intended uses

MacPherson v. Buick

PRODUCT LIABILITY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The plaintiff bought a car and was injured due to a manufacturing error of a defective wood wheel. MacPherson sued the manufacturer of the car for neglicence even though the manufacturer outsourced wheel production to another manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION Does Buick's duty of care extend beyond the car retailer to the customer? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because 1. Negligent defects in automobiles can cause death 2. The driver is a foreseeable user and Buick knows that negligence can will harm this user PRECEDENT Manufactures of products have responsibility to inspect products to protect the safety of all foreseeable users.

Ward v. Arm & Hammer

PRODUCT LIABILITY PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Ward (Plaintiff) was arrested for distributing crack cocaine and sue Arm and Hammer (Defendant) for not warning him that he should not use baking soda to create crack cocaine. LEGAL QUESTION Does Arm and Hammer have the duty to prevent people from criminally misusing its product? REASONING OF THE COURT No, that is ridiculous. Manufactures do not have to warn people to not use their products in a criminal manner. It is like requiring car manufacturers to warn people not to use their cars for drag racing. PRECEDENT Manufacturing should not be responsible for warning product users of not using their products criminally.

Kelo v. City of New London

PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Fort Trumball residence do not want their property to be taken away so the city can build shopping center for economic development. They wanted to sell these properties to private developers to create jobs and generate more tax income. LEGAL QUESTION Can the City of New London take the land for economic development under the Takings Clause (for public use) of the Fifth Amendment? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, economic development is for public use and the city is trying to improve the overall conditions of the area. PRECEDENT Governments are able to take private property justly to improve economic conditions (public) of the area.

Quinlan v. Doe

PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED George Rossi had land with a season use cabin in Saratoga County. He originally gave the land to his Peter Rossi (brother) but the brother dies earlier than him. After George died in 1976 (never married), Quinlan, who had a close relationship with the man, tried to get his property through adverse possession. The great nephews and niece wanted the titles to the land. LEGAL QUESTION Is Quinlan qualified to get the land through adverse possession? REASONING OF THE COURT Quinlan has the right to keep the land because he has contributed to taxes, repairs, and improvements to the property. For over 35 years, no one else had control of the property. Doe didn't prove that Quinlan's possession of the land was not hostile to their particular interests. PRECEDENT A person can take the land by adverse possession from a previous owner of land.

Horn v. Department of Agriculture

PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Horne grows raisins and has to give reserve raisins to the government. Horne is not paid for these reserve raisins and refuses to give the government any raisins. LEGAL QUESTION 1. Is personal property, as opposed to just real property, included in the government's "categorical duty" to pay a fair compensation under the Fifth Amendment? 2. Can the government avoid categorical duty by giving them apportion of interest in the taken property? 3. Does the government collection of goods to regulate commerce count as a "persay taking"? REASONING OF THE COURT Ninth Circuit decision is reversed. 1. Personal property is included under the Fifth Amendment. 2. No, the government must provide just compensation. 3. Yes, the raisin growers can't just easily switch to planting something else. PRECEDENT Property laws can't be manipulated to compromise on just compensation for regulated crops.

Poyck v. Bryant

PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Poyck (landlord) sue the Bryants (tenants at 5-C) for not paying rent. The tenants counter that they left the property because Poyck failed to do anything about the second hand smoke they were exposed to. LEGAL QUESTION Does secondhand smoke from a neighbor breach the warranty of habitatabiliity and justify moving out? REASONING OF THE COURT Implied warranty of habitatability extends to 2nd hand smoke PRECEDENT Secondhand smoke breaches the implied warranty of habitatability.

London Terrace Towers v. Davis

PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED The London Terrace Towers Co-op wants to remove shareholder Davis from the building because he is constantly being extremely disruptive (playing loud music, slamming doors, stealing). LEGAL QUESTION Can the board legally terminate Davis's shareholder-tenant's propriety lease under "objectionable conduct" through business judgement? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the board acted in the best interest of the community and has the power to terminate the lease. This is within the board's power because they have to protect others in the community. PRECEDENT Co-op boards can vote and use business judgement to terminate a shareholder-tenant's proprietary lease.

SEC v. Dirks

SECURITIES LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Dirk received information that the stocks of Equity Funding were too high because of fraud. While he did his own investigations, he revealed this fact to several investors. When the fraud was discovered by the SEC, the SEC also charged Dirk for reveling insider information LEGAL QUESTION Did Dirk's information of fraudulent activities by Equity Funding to his investors violate his fiduciary duty? REASONING OF THE COURT No, he does not have to keep information of fraud confidential. A tippee has a duty to disclose fraud in this case. PRECEDENT Employers are vicariously liable for their worker's negligence within the scope of employment.

United States v. O'Hagan

SECURITIES LAW PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED O'Hagan obtained information on Pillsbury while he working at Dorsey & Whitney law. He used the information and made $4.3 million dollars on Pillsbury stock. He was convicted of fraud of 57 counts. The Court of Appeals reversed through "misappropriation theory". LEGAL QUESTION Did O'Hagan violate a fiduciary duty to not use insider information to trade stock? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, O'Hagan used non-public information to conduct insider trading which creates an unfair advantage. PRECEDENT The trading use of non-public information obtained through working in any profession is illegal.

Vanna White v. Samsung

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Vanna White sued Samsung for depicted a robot with her image next to a "wheel of fortune" in their VCR ad. She was not compensated. LEGAL QUESTION Did Samsung infringe on Vanna White's rights when they appropriated her identity? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes, the court overturned the lower court. Vanna White's publicity is marketable and worth money. Action can be taken if: 1- The defendant's identity is used 2- The appropriation proves advantageous to the Samsung a. Lower court says no but this court says yes - publicity is marketable 3- There is no consent 4- There is resulting injury PRECEDENT Appropriations of marketable figures infringes the right of publicity for those people.

Palsgraf v. LIRR

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED When railway guards helped a passenger onto the train, the passenger's package dropped on the rails. The newspaper coverage package turned out to be fireworks which exploded and caused scales to hit the plaintiff standing at another end of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sues for negligence. LEGAL QUESTION Did the actions of the guard constitute as negligence tort? REASONING OF THE COURT No, the guard had no way of knowing that the package contained explosives. The event was not foreseeable. The passenger who brought the explosives is more at fault. PRECEDENT Negligence is only a tort when the harm is willful and obvious.

Carafano v. Metrosplash

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Actress Carafano sues Metrosplash (Matchmaker.com) for allowing a user to make a false dating profile for her stating false information and her real phone number and real house address. LEGAL QUESTION Is Metrosplash responsible for the defamation damages caused by the false Carafano account? REASONING OF THE COURT No because under 27 U.S.C 230(c)(1) , providers of interactive computer services can't be treated as speakers or publishers of the content users post. PRECEDENT Interactive services aren't responsible for false information that can cause defamnation.

Walt Disney World v. Wood

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Alosia Wood was injured by Daniel Wood's vehicle during they experience on the grand prix ride. Although the fault of the injury was 14% on Aloysia, 85% on Daniel and only 1% on Disney, Disney had to pay 86% on the damages. Disney appeals to lessen the amount of damages it has to pay. LEGAL QUESTION Do Alosia Wood's injuries, which is only 1% caused by Disney, qualify for joint and several liability? REASONING OF THE COURT Yes because of four reasons: 1. This injury is not divisible under joint and several liability 2. Someone has to pay anyway if one party is unable to 3. Negligence of the plaintiff only relates to herself. However, negligence of the defendant is a tort that relates to the safety of others 4. Getting rid of joint and several liability will harm future injured people from getting compensation. PRECEDENT Even there can be comparative negligence in a case, the court can still apply joint and several liability

James v. Meow Media

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Michael brought a pistol to his Kentucky high school, wounded five people and killed three (James, Steger, and Hadley). The plaintiffs are the parents of the dead students who are suing Meow Media for distributing the violent video games that Michael has played. LEGAL QUESTION Were the killings a "foreseeable" result of Meow Media's distribution activities? REASONING OF THE COURT No, Meow Media could not have predicted this result. It is assumed that "third parties will not commit intentional criminal acts". PRECEDENT Courts can't hold media products liable for the actions of their users.

Zambo v. Tom-Car Foods, Inc.

TORTS PARTIES AND LEGAL RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Zambo went to Tom-Car Foods to buy milk for his mother. In the parking lot, he tripped over a parking bumper in the handicap parking area right in front of the store LEGAL QUESTION Does Tom-Car need to take responsibility for Zambo's injury if they use the defense that the bumper is a "open and obvious danger"? REASONING OF THE COURT No, because any person could have seen the parking bumper with reasonable inspection. Zambo had been to the store multiple times before too. PRECEDENT Courts can't hold businesses liable for injuries from "open and obvious dangers" on the facility.

Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez

US Supreme Court Debate Cases

Hawkins v. Raymore

US Supreme Court Debate Cases

Heffernan v. Paterson

US Supreme Court Debate Cases

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle

US Supreme Court Debate Cases