Learning Team B Reflection: Week 3 IRAC Brief Learning Team B: Rhea Carson‚ Elspeth Flynn‚ Matthew Cable‚ Dusty Henson‚ Joseph Spurling LAW531 October 21‚ 2014 Janice Scott IRAC: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Case Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Issue Whether first-sale doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) is applicable to John Wiley & Sons copyrighted works manufactured and bought abroad‚ resold in the United States by Kirtsaeng without the owner’s permission. Is this a violation of the Copyright
Premium Copyright
Behihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. v. Benihana‚ Inc.‚ 906 A.2d 114 (Del. 2006) Facts: Rocky Aoki founded Benihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. (BOT)‚ and its subsidiary‚ Benihana‚ which own and operate Benihana restaurants in the United States and other countries. Aoki transferred his 100% ownership of BOT to Benihana Protective Trust in 1998 in order to avoid licensing problems stemming from his conviction on insider trading charges. Benihana‚ a Delaware corporation‚ had two classes of common stock. There were 6 million
Premium Stock Corporation Fiduciary
MILLERSBURG — A warrant has been issued for the arrest of a Lakeville man who admittedly was in illegal possession of weapons during and following a road rage incident that culminated in the firing of several rounds from a gun‚ but failed to appear for sentencing Thursday. Joesph R. Demeter‚ 34‚ of 7041 Township Road 466‚ Lot 22‚ previously pleaded not guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to having weapons while under disability and aggravated menacing. In exchange for his guilty plea‚ two
Premium Police Crime Murder
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Facts: In 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation‚ Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes‚ and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition‚ the language stated that Mr. Miranda
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States
Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous‚ successful‚ and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Premium Contract Contract
Case Brief & IRAC Carrie "Shellie" Cobbs University of Phoenix LAW 531 Judge Stephen R. Ruddick April 28‚ 2015 Case Brief & IRAC Case Brief: Natasha Hallet was a veteran performer for Cirque du Soleil and performed numerous times without injury until one mistake that took place during a show in Orlando‚ FL changed all of that. While performing an aerial stunt‚ Ms. Hallet said that she forgot to rig her harness properly and that her partner missed her mistake during a routine safety check. Since
Premium Cirque du Soleil Tort
FOR PROJECT BRIEF PRINCE 2 Method Conia: Orange Deivis & Joey: Black Noura: Green [PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT BRIEF:] [It is essential to obtain a clear view of the final objective(s) and outcome‚ as well as the constraints and assumptions that impact on those responsible for the project. A properly constructed Project Mandate will help but as the creation of the Project Mandate is outside the control of the Project Manager‚ the Project Brief is used to
Premium Project management Sales
CASE BRIEF FORMAT A case brief is the result of distilling a court opinion down into its essential elements. There are many different ways to brief a case‚ each dependent largely upon its purpose in being assigned. Below is the format which you should follow for briefing cases in this course: CASE BRIEF TO: Supervising Attorney’s Name‚ Esq. FROM: (last four digits of your social security number) DATE: (the date the brief is due) CITATION: (You should give a complete citation
Premium Appeal Question Law
to land to enhance the land in some way.” Nikolas James‚ Business Law‚ 2012 (1st) Edition (p. 444). Fittings are objects attached to land or buildings that are not Fixtures. The Case Law relevant to fixtures and fittings is the case of Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd Vs Coroneo (1938) 30 SR (NSW) 700. The case involved the selling of a theatre and the court was to decide which assets were fixtures and which were fittings. The court decided that a switchboard & projector were permanently
Premium Term Law Landscape
Coaching: A Case Study on the Potential of ‘Brief Coaching’ PHONE EMAIL WEB Hector Sandoval +34 664 46 10 54 hsandoval@me.com www.hsctalent.com A Case Study: The Potential of Brief Coaching Leadership Coaching: A Case Study on the Potential of ‘Brief Coaching’
Premium Leadership