Kathryn Myrick Business Law 1 Professor McDonnell Case Brief A.5 Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine Inc.‚ 968 F. 2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1992) FACTS: In 1985 Michael Savage placed an ad in the Soldier of Fortune Magazine (“SOF”) advertising “Gun For Hire”. The ad ran from June 1985 to March 1986 generating an average of 30-40 call per week for jobs ranging from murder‚ kidnapping‚ assault and other criminal activity. After three previous failed attempts on his business partner Richard Braun’s
Premium Law
Marriot Case Brief 1. What is the weighted Average Cost of Capital for Marriot Corporation? WACC for Marriott Corp is 11.89 WACC of divisions: Lodging 10.29‚ Restaurant 13.49‚ Contract Services 13.615 a) What risk-free rate and the risk premium did you use to calculate the cost of equity? We used 8.95% as the risk free rate (LT Government Debt) and the MRP we used was 7.43%‚ which means are expected market return is 8.95+7.43=16.38% b) How did you measure Marriott’s cost of debt? We added
Free Arithmetic mean Average Weighted average cost of capital
Chaiken Case Brief Facts: Chaiken made separate but equal agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barber shop. Under the “partnership” agreement: ~ Chaiken would provide the barber chairs‚ supplies and licenses. Strazella and Spitzer provide tools of the trade. ~ Gross returns were to be divided on a percentage basis between all three men. ~ Chaiken will decide all matters of the partnership policy. ~Stated hours of work and holidays. ~Chaiken holds and distributes all receipts
Premium Employment Corporation Profit
Case Brief A.4 GNAZZO v. G.D. SEARLE & CO. 973 F.2d 136 (1992) U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit Pierce‚ Circuit Judge Facts: On November 11‚ 1974‚ Gnazzo had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted in her uterus for contraceptive purposes. The IUD was developed‚ marketed and sold by G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). When Gnazzo’s deposition was taken‚ she stated that her doctor had informed her that “the insertion would hurt‚ but not for long‚” and that she “would have uncomfortable and probably
Premium Civil procedure Causality Complaint
Get the facts Step 1: The facts of a case suggest an Issue. What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? Are there buzzwords in the facts that suggest an issue? Is the court deciding a question of fact - i.e. the parties are in dispute over what happened - or is it a question of law - i.e. the court is unsure which rule to apply to these facts? What are the non-issues? Identify the rule The legal issue would not exist unless some event occurred. The issue mechanically determines
Premium Law Jury Common law
Page 517 918 F.2d 517 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 870‚ 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40‚455‚ 59 USLW 2378 Emma S. VAUGHN‚ Plaintiff-Appellant‚ v. Robert EDEL‚ et al.‚ Defendants‚ Texaco‚ Inc.‚ Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-3181 Summary Calendar. United States Court of Appeals‚ Fifth Circuit. Dec. 6‚ 1990. Page 518 Kenneth J. Beck‚ Harvey‚ La.‚ for plaintiff-appellant. Albert H. Hanemann‚ Jr.‚ Lemle & Kelleher‚ John D. Fitzmorris‚ Jr.‚ Legal Dept. New Orleans‚ La.‚ for Texaco
Premium Discrimination Racism
WILFREDO M. CATU‚ complainant vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA‚ respondent A.C. No. 5738 (February 19‚ 2008) This is an administrative case filed by the complainant claiming that the respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.. Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon
Premium Lawyer Law
requiring disclosure potential discrimination by requiring disclosure sexual orientation‚ sex‚ and about family life? III. Law used The court uses section 230 of the CDA to see if Roommates.com‚ LLC has immunity. The court uses this law to see if this case applies to RHA and state real estate discrimination law. IV. Reasoning Roommate.com‚ LLC is classified under 230 as an “information content provider” because the website made the questions‚ force users to answer them in order to use the website
Premium Discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1968 Sexual orientation
authority to accept the process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner and the return of service does not show a valid manner of service. At last‚ the appellate court of Texas reverse the trial court’s default judgment and remand this case for further proceedings. Issues: (a) Did the return of service shows that process was delivered to someone other than the one named in the citation? (b) Did JoAnn Kocerek has the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas
Premium Civil procedure Service of process Complaint
William Le Grande v. B & L Services‚ INC. π (1983) ∆ FACTS: π set his own schedule‚ and operated independent and at his own discretion. π could use ∆ dispatch service but was not required to and could pick up passengers at his own discretion. π signed a K with ∆ disclaiming any ER/EE relationship. π paid ∆ a daily fee and paid for fuel. π kept all addition money. ∆ required π to keep "trip sheets" and comply with a simple dress code‚ both mandated by local ordinance. ∆ provided
Premium The Work Judgment Control