Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself” is the product that sports offers to customers. * Restraints on competition
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
DEVRY UNIVERSITY 3005 HIGHLAND PKWY DOWNERS GROVE‚ IL 60515-5799 Terms: (Nadel v. Burger King Corp.‚ 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2144) Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Combined Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Project ID: 7 of 8
Free Product liability
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm. Holdings: the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $2800. Rationale: the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone. The case was a case of torts and it related to the assult and battery which the defendant should pay money for the plaintiff. The defendant has no proof of any other hurt‚ and the medical testimony seems to have been agreed that this touch or kick was
Premium Contract
bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and out of proportion
Premium Jury Law Tort
Jersey Boys is a Broadway musical produced by Dodger Productions‚ which portrays the life and musical careers of the singing group The Four Seasons. During the 1960s‚ The Four Seasons were the Americans answer to the British invasion‚ singing such hits as “Can’t Take My Eyes Off You”‚ “My Eyes Adored You”‚ and their biggest hit‚ “Sherry.” The group consisted of four members‚ each one representing a different season. Tommy Devito was spring while Nick Massi was fall; Frankie Vallie was winter‚ and
Premium Copyright Fair use Supreme Court of the United States
Allen v. Dalk CITATION: Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-2 (2002) PARTIES: Allen (Niece) v. Dalk (Half-sister) FACTS: Ms. Dalk‚ disputed the validity of a will claimed to be that of her half-sister‚ the decedent‚ McPeak. Decedent signed four originals of a living will‚ three originals of durable power of attorney‚ but failed to sign her will. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: The lower courts determined that the will was invalid. ISSUE: Whether the will of the decedent McPeak was properly executed
Premium Law Common law Sign
Tennessee v. Reeves. 917 S.W.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Tennessee‚ 1996) On the evening of January 5‚ 1993‚ Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman‚ both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School‚ spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher‚ Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger ’s drink. After that ‚ they would steal Geiger ’s car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
Emily Head CRJU 314 Koppersmith v. Alabama 742 So. 2d 206 (Ala. 1999) Concurrences: Judge Long‚ Judge McMillan‚ and Judge Fry Dissents: N/A Facts: Koppersmith and his wife Cindy were fighting in their front yard when Cindy tried to go inside. As she tried to enter the house Koppersmith stopped her and a physical dispute ensued. Cindy fell off the porch and into the yard. She died from a skull fractures to the back of her head. In Koppersmith’s statement he told police that him and Cindy
Premium Jury Appeal Court