BLaw Midterm 1 Court Cases

Case 3.4: -Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark

-137 S.Ct.1421 (2017) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Is an arbitration agreement signed by an attorney-in-fact enforceable where the attorney-in-fact has been granted broad powers to sign contracts? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The dispute must go to arbitration and not trial per the agreement in place

Case 6.1: Bilenky v Ryobi Technologies Inc

-115 F. Supp.3d 661 -U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia •Issue -Is Ryobi liable for negligence for selling a defective lawn tractor to Wright (which killed him bursting into flames)? -Decision: The U.S. district court upheld the jury's finding that Ryobi was negligent in placing a defective product in the marketplace. The court upheld the jury's award of damages of $2.5 million

Case 11.1: Ferguson v Carnes

-125 So.3d 841 (2013) -District Court of Appeal of Florida •Issue -Was the oral promise supported by consideration? The sisters had an oral agreement that if either got disinherited by their mother they would equally split the mother's estate. The mother died and gave her whole estate to Carnes, and she refused to give anything to Ferguson -Decision: The court of appeal held that the oral agreement did not lack consideration, reversed the decision of the circuit court, and remanded the case for further proceedings

Case 7.1: Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc

-133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Is a naturally occurring segment of DNA patent eligible? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue. "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable"

Case 4.1: Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Bartlett

-133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Does the federal drug labeling law preempt a stricter state drug labeling law? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal drug labeling law preempted New Hampshire's stricter labeling law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. court of appeal's decision. Mutual got out of paying damages to women affected by undisclosed side affect because state law was not valid

Case 8.4: Riley v California

-134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Can the police, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested? •Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that police cannot, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone of an individual who has been arrested.

Case 4.4: Horne v. Department of Agriculture

-135 S.Ct. 2419 -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue: -Does the government's action of taking a % of raisins of a farmer's crop each year constitute a taking of personal property under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment that requires the payment of just compensation? Decision:The U.S. Supreme Court held that there was a taking by the U.S. government of Horne's personal property, and that the government owes them the fair market value of the raisins taken. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. court of appeals

Case 4.3: Obergefell v. Hodges

-135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Do the challenged state laws that do not permit or recognize same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? -Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage or that do not recognize valid same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Case 3.2: Tyson Foods Inc v Bouaphakeo

-136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Should the class be certified? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the U.S. court of appeal's decision to certify the class and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Tyson had to pay time and a half (>40 hours) for time employees spent putting on protective work gear

Case 6.5: Cummins v BIC USA, Inc

-727 F.3d 506(2013) -United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit •Issue -Did the BIC's lawyer's remarks in the closing statement prejudice the jury? District court did not find BIC liable for CAP's injuries since Cummins removed the safety guard of the lighter, but CAP appealed due to BIC's inappropriate closing remarks swaying the jury. -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of defendant BIC. BIC's comments were inappropriate but not untrue

Case 1.1: Fisher v the University of Texas

-Supreme Court Case •Issue -Is the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas lawful under the Equal Protection Clause? -Decision: Sided with University of Texas, ruled that their admissions policy was strictly for creating a diverse student body. Race conscious admissions is lawful under the equal protection clause

New York Times Co v Sullivan

The U.S. Supreme Court held that public officials cannot recover for defamation unless they can prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." Actual malice means that the defendant made the false statement knowingly or with reckless disregard of its falsity. This requirement has since been extended to public figure plaintiffs such as movie stars, sports personalities, and other celebrities.

Case 8.1: Maryland v Kulbicki

-136 S.Ct. 2 (2015) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Were Kulbicki's attorneys unconstitutionally ineffective in representing him at trial? Criminal conviction came at a time where newer investigative technologies were not available. Kulbicki appeals decision years later while in jail -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that Kulbicki's defense attorneys were not unconstitutionally ineffective in representing him at trial. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Maryland court of appeals. Ruled in favor of Maryland

Case 7.3: Star Athletics LLC v Varsity Brands Inc

-137 S.Ct. 1002 (2017) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Are Varsity's designs and graphics on its cheerleading uniforms protected by copyright law? (Varsity sued Star for copyright) -Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's decision finding that Varsity's designs qualified for copyright protection. Ruled for Varsity

Case 7.2: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd V. Apple Inc

-137 S.Ct. 429 (2016) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -When determining damages for the infringement of design patents of products comprised of many components, must the court award as damages the entire profits made from the sale of the product or partial damages relating to only the infringing components? Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement on phones, Samsung is trying to lessen infringement to just component parts -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court stated that damages for infringing a design patent of a multi-component product may either be the entire profits made from the sale of the product or the profits attributable to the infringing components, depending on the facts of the case. The Supreme Court reversed the award of $399 million to Apple and remanded the case to the lower courts for a determination of damages based on the facts of this case. Supreme court ruled in favor of Samsung

Case 4.2: Packingham v. North Carolina

-2017 U.S. Lexis 3871 (2017) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Does the North Carolina statute that prohibits registered sex offenders from using social media websites violate the First Amendment? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the North Carolina statute violated the First Amendment.

Case 5.3: James v Meow Media Inc

-300 F.3d 683 (2002) -United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit •Issue -Are the video and movie producers liable to the plaintiffs for selling and licensing violent video games and movies to Carneal, who killed the plaintiffs' three children? -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals held that the defendants were not the proximate cause of Carneal's actions and were not liable to the plaintiffs

Case 5.2: Jones v City of Seattle, Washington

-314 P.3d 380 (2013) -Supreme Court of Washington •Issue -Is the award of damages proper? Jones, a firefighter, fell threw the fire pole hole when half asleep. -Decision: The supreme court of Washington upheld the damage award to Jones against the city of Seattle. City of Seattle was found negligible for Jones' injuries due the layout of fire station

Case 11.3: Clemmons v Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc

-397 S.W.3d 503 (2013) -Missouri Court of Appeals •Issue -Is the arbitration agreement enforceable? Clemmons employed by the Chiefs signed arbitration agreement so he couldn't sue them. After Clemmons was let go he filed a lawsuit but Chiefs tried to get it thrown away bc of agreement. Agreement only had promises by Clemmons- nothing by Chiefs... no consideration Decision:The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's ruling that the arbitration agreement lacked consideration and was unenforceable

Case 6.2: Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company vs Dolinski

-420 P.2d 855 (1966) -Supreme Court of Nevada •Issue -Was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's injuries (illness and anguish from consuming a decoposed mouse and feces in his soda bottle)? -Decision: The supreme court of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability and held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that there was a defect in manufacture. The supreme court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff Dolinski.

Case 6.3: Genie Industries vs Matak

-462 S.W.3d 1 (2015) -Supreme Court of Texas •Issue -Was the Genie AWP-40S defectively designed? -Decision: The Supreme Court of Texas held that there was no design defect. The supreme court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Genie Industries. Genie is not liable for Matak dying on their machine (a crane?) when there is no safer alternative, it is very useful, and the dangers are properly educated to the users with a sign

Case 7.6: V Secret Catalogue, Inc. and Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. v. Moseley

-605 F.3d 382 (2010) -United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit •Issue -Is there tarnishment of the Victoria's Secret senior mark by the Moseleys' use of the junior marks Victor's Secret and Victor's Little Secret? Decision:The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the U.S. district court's judgment in favor of Victoria's Secret

Case 5.1: Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Cockrell

-61 S.W.3d 774 (2001) -Court of Appeals of Texas •Issue -Does the shopkeeper's privilege protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case? -Decision: The court of appeals upheld the trial court's finding that Wal-Mart had falsely imprisoned Cockrell and had not proved the shopkeeper's privilege. The court of appeals upheld the trial court's judgment that awarded Cockrell $300,000 for mental anguish. Navarro made Cockrell strip down and remove a surgical bandage protecting a sterile area out of suspicion of shoplifting-unreasonable

Case 9.3: Facebook v Winklevoss

-640 F.3d 1034 (2011) -United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •Issue -Is the settlement agreement enforceable? Winklevoss and Facebook entered agreement for stock ownership rights. Facebook then became multibillion dollar company. Winklevoss claimed Facebook engaged in fraud and wanted to rescind settlement agreement -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decision of the U.S. district court that enforced the settlement agreement. Courts are not here to rescue you from a bad deal

Case 8.2: United States v Barrington

-648 F.3d 1178, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 16535 (2011) -United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit •Issue -Was Barrington guilty of the crimes charged and was the prison sentence appropriate? College student uses software to obtain registrar employees login info and uses it to change his and others' grades. Friends testified against him. Friends took plea for 22 months in prison. Barrington did not, sentenced to 7 years in prison, appealed -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed Barrington's conviction and prison sentence.

Case 6.4: Braswell v Cincinnati Incorporated

-731 F.3d 1081 (2013) -United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit •Issue -Is Cincinnati liable for strict liability? -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decision of the U.S. district court that found Cincinnati not liable. Cincinnati was not liable for Braswell's injuries using the machine because they properly warned users of the dangers

Case 9.1: Kolodziej v Mason

-774 F.3d 736 (2014) -United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit •Issue -Was Mason's million-dollar challenge made on television a legitimate legal offer? Mason made a timed route challenge on TV as a hyperbole. Kolodziej did the challenege and demanded $. Mason refused to pay. -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Mason

Case 9.2: Lagen v United Continental Holdings, Inc

-774 F.3d 736 (2014) -United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit •Issue -Was a unilateral contract formed when Lagenflew one million miles on United? United had rewards for flying a million miles w/ them but has a clause in their contract allowing them to change their unilateral contract whenever it wanted. After Lagen flew the miles, United reduced the benefits (unrelated) -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision that held that a unilateral contract had not been formed between United and Lagen. Therefore, there was no breach of contract when United reduced the privileges of million-mile flyers such as Lagen.

Carter's of New Bedford, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

-790 F.3d 289 (2015) -United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit •Issue -Is the forum-selection clause enforceable? Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision that enforced the forum-selection clause and dismissed Carter's Massachusetts lawsuit against Nike. (IE- the forum-selection clause is enforceable-Carter must sue in venue specificied in contract)

Case 11.2: Cooper v Smith

-800 N.E.2d 372 (2003) -Court of Appeals of Ohio •Issue -Can Cooper recover the gifts or the value of the gifts he gave to Julie and Janet Smith? -Decision: The court of appeals held that the gifts made by Cooper to Julie (other than the engagement ring) and to Janet were irrevocable gifts that he could not recover simply because his engagement with Julie ended. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, allowing Julie and Janet Smith to keep these gifts. Engagement ring value can be recoverable if marriage doesn't occur

Case 3.1: Goesel v Boley Intl (H.K) Ltd.

-806 F.3d 414 (2015) -United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit •Issue -Was the contingency-fee agreement enforceable as written? -Decision: The U.S. court of appeals held that the district court should not have modified the contingency-fee agreement and reversed the district court's judgment. The contingency-fee agreement was enforceable

Case 10.2: Ehlen v Melvin

-823 N.W.2d 780 (2012) -Supreme Court of North Dakota •Issue -Was a counteroffer made by the Melvins thatEhlen accepted? Melvins signed contract w/ Ehlen to sell their house to him. Melvins made modifications to contract, signed it, and sent it to Ehlen, who did not sign the counteroffer by the closing date. Melvins told Ehlen the deal was terminated. Ehlen sued stating they had an enforceable contract -Decision: The supreme court of North Dakota held that no agreement existed between Ehlenand the Melvins. Because Melvins made a counter-offer, modifying the terms of the original contract, the original contract was terminated

Case 5.4: Grady v Green Acres Inc

-826 N.W.2d 547 (2013) -Minnesota Court of Appeals •Issue -Does assumption of the risk preclude liability for injuries resulting from the dangers inherent in snow tubing? Green Acres was not liable for Grady's injury to Grady knew and acknowledged risk prior to tubing -Decision: The court of appeals held that the doctrine of assumption of the risk applies to snow tubing and that Green Acres was properly granted summary judgment.

Case 10.1: McKee v Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc

-864 N.W.2d 518 (2015) -Supreme Court of Iowa •Issue -Was there a contract between the parties that provided for the payment of a bonus when playing the Miss Kitty slot machine? The rules stated malfunctions void all payment, and she did not read the rules but had an opportunity to. McKee won $1.85 but the screen malfunctioned and said over $41,000,000. Casino paid her $1.85 and refused to pay the error amount -The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the casino. Casino proved it was a malfunction

Case 7.4: Broadcast Music Inc v McDade & Sons Inc

-928 F.Supp.2d 1120 (2013) -United States District Court for Arizona •Issue -Are the defendants liable for copyright infringement? -Decision: The U.S. district court held that the defendants had engaged in copyright infringement and awarded $39,000 in damages, attorney's fees, and costs to the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants' infringement of copyrighted musical compositions licensed by Broadcast Music, Inc (played at McDade's restaurant). Small Businesses still have to comply with the law

Case 5.3: Aleo v SLB Toys USA Inc

-995 N.E.2d 740 (2013) -Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts •Issue -Was Toys "R" Us grossly negligent? Toys-R-Us was grossly negligible for not testing their pool slide for weight limit and safety of head-first sliding, resulting in the death of Robin Aleo Decision:The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding of gross negligence on the part of Toys "R" Us and the award of compensatory and punitive damages

Case 8.3: Birchfield v North Dakota

-Birchfield v. North Dakota -136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016) -Supreme Court of the United States •Issue -Do the North Dakota and Minnesota statutes that make it a crime to refuse breath or blood tests violate the Fourth Amendment? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that state implied consent laws that impose criminal penalties on suspected drunk drivers who refuse to take a breath test to measure the alcohol in their bodies do not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. However, the Supreme Court held that laws that impose criminal penalties for refusing to take a blood test to measure the alcohol in their bodies do violate the Fourth Amendment. Breathe tests are not as intrusive to privacy as blood tests are

International Shoe v Washington

-How far can a state go to require a person or business to defend him-, her-, or itself in a court of law in that state? -the U.S. Supreme Court held that International Shoe was subject to the lawsuit in Washington. Thus, the famous "minimum contacts" test and "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" establish when a state may require a person or business to appear in its courtrooms. -If have a question about minimus contacts, rewatch CH 2 Part 4 lecture start at 18 min

Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc

-It established a "sliding scale" test for determining when a court has jurisdiction over the owner or operator of an interactive, semi-interactive, or passive website •The court held that Dot Com was subject to personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania long-arm statute and ordered Dot Com to defend itself in Pennsylvania.

Case 3.3: Wade vs Wal-Mart Stores Inc

29 N.E.3d 1141 (2015) -Appellate Court of Illinois •Issue -Should Wal-Mart be granted summary judgment? -Decision: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Wal-Mart's favor. Although Wade fell into a pothole on Walmart's property and broke her foot, it was open and obvious and Wade could've avoided the pothole. There is no dispute of facts from Walmart. But Walmart argues under the law they are not liable for the pothole. So Walmart filed summary judgement

Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture v. Filburn

a federal statute limited the amount of wheat that a farmer could plant and harvest for home consumption. Filburn, a farmer, violated the law. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal statute on the grounds that it involved interstate commerce because the statute was designed to prevent nationwide surpluses and shortages of wheat. The Court reasoned that wheat grown for home consumption would affect the supply of wheat available in interstate commerce.

Greenman vs Yuba Power Products Inc

the California Supreme Court adopted the doctorine of strict liability in tort as a basis for product liability actions

Atwater v. Lago Vista, Texas

the U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer may make a warrantless arrest pursuant to a minor criminal offense. Gail Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them were wearing seat belts. Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer, observed the seat belt violation and pulled Atwater over. A friend of Atwater's arrived at the scene and took charge of the children. Turek handcuffed Atwater, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the police station. Atwater was booked, her mug shot was taken, and she was placed in a jail cell for about one hour, until she was released on $310 bond. Atwater ultimately pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor seat belt offenses and paid a $50 fine. Atwater sued the City of Lago Vista and the police officer for compensatory and punitive damages for allegedly violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Atwater, finding that the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to make a warrantless arrest pursuant to a minor criminal offense.

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.

the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state statute that prohibited a pharmacist from advertising the price of prescription drugs was unconstitutional because it violated the Freedom of Speech Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this was commercial speech that was protected by the First Amendment.

Case 2.1 V.L vs E.L

§136 S.Ct. 1017 (2016) §Supreme Court of the United States §Issue: -Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require Alabama to enforce Georgia's adoption judgment? -Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The full faith and credit clause requires Alabama to follow Georgia's adoption

Wrench vs Taco Bell Corporation

•256 F.3d 446, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 15097 (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) •Taco Bell had Wrench show them their ideas for a character for Taco Bell commercials. Taco Bell did not sign Wrench to an express contract. Taco Bell used the characters in an advertising campaign and did not compensate Wrench. District court denied Taco Bell summary judgement and appeals court affirmed, sending case to trial •A federal court jury found that Taco Bell had breached an implied-in-fact contract by stealing Rinks and Shields' idea for the Chihuahua commercials. The district court ordered Taco Bell to pay a total of $42 million in damages to Rinks and Shields

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida

the U.S. Supreme Court held that a city ordinance that prohibited ritual sacrifices of chickens during church service violated the Free Exercise Clause and that such sacrifices should be allowed.