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
Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract
Robey v. Hinners Facts: In 2005‚ Robey who runs his business in Sikeston‚ Missouri sold a used 2002 Cadillac Escalade to a Kentucky resident‚ Hinner‚ over ebay auction. As Robey advertised‚ the car was “clean‚ better and average” and with an “ 1 month/1‚000 mile Service Agreement”. After Hinner bought the car‚ he realized that the car was not as advertised. Robey argued that since he was not a resident‚ and the lack of personal jurisdiction that he should be dismissed. Issue: Even though
Premium Jurisdiction United States Appeal
Case examples outcomes: The importance of utilizing all the sources of the Agreement on Trade-Related-Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) is illustrated in the following case: Case #1: Carell v. The Shubert Organization‚ Inc. Facts: The Plaintiff‚ Candace Anne Carell was the make-up designer for the New York production of the Broadway musical Cats. The Shubert Organization‚ Inc. was the New York Corporation that produced Cats. The Shubert Organization also comprised of another production unit
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Contract
her vehicle which resulted in the damages suffered by the plaintiff Jim. Issue: The defendant Ruth owed a duty of care by her actions to protect the plaintiff Jim from harm. In the fact that she did not exercise this duty‚ she then breached this duty. The breaching of this duty of care resulted in the actual causation of the facts that led to the plaintiffs Jim’s injuries. Rule of Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur. This case falls under the rule of
Premium Tort Law Tort law
1. Can you (or Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor) search Yourprop’s personal vehicle currently parked in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer. a. Pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ Mr. Yourprop and all other employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would prevent me and his supervisor from freely searching his vehicle. The easiest and most efficient way that would prevent questions of immiscibility in court and protect the company from legal
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police
Written by Sambhav Dhawan Advocating for the Appellant Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Quebec The appellant Balvir Singh Multani and his son Gurbaj Singh Multani are orthodox Sikhs 1. Gurbaj Singh‚ born in 19892‚ as being a devoted Sikh follower. Gurbaj believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times. A kirpan is as small religious object which symbolizes the purity of the faith and his commitment to defend it3.It bears a
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
5% ad allowance‚ to department stores for placing ad in print * Free media publicity * In this industry the fad of products was really high * The industry was highly competitive with big retailers having maximum say and share * R and R was a new and small player in this industry which was unknown to both retailers and customers so there were doubt of their acceptance * In order to achieve credibility‚ they went ahead with collaborating with TV Guide * TV Guide could be
Premium Department store
Tennimon V. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Brief and explanation: In 1984‚ appellant Elaine Tennimon‚ as personal representative of decedent’s estate filed suit for wrongful death against appellee helicopter manufacturer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee helicopter manufacturer on the ground that appellant’s wrongful death suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant‚ Elaine Tennimon appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Bell
Premium Appeal United States Jury
HELMER et al. v. RUMARSON TECHNOLOGIES‚ INC. (two cases) Court of Appeals of Georgia‚ 2000. 245 Ga. App. 598‚ 538 S.E.2d 504 FACTS Rumarson Technologies‚ Inc. (RTI) sued Robert and Percy Helmer to collect from them personally $24‚965 owed to it by Event Marketing‚ Inc. (EMI) when EMI’s check to pay RTI bounced. Robert and Percy Helmer were authorized signatories on EMI’s corporate account‚ and they signed the check. RTI argued that as signatories they could be held personally liable. The lower
Premium Appeal Cheque Court