SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CASE NO. 99-CA-201 Case Briefing 1. Parties: Identify the plaintiff and the defendant. a. SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT b. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 2. Facts: Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case. a. On April 11‚ 1996‚ Appellant Sandra Mitchell was having dinner at Appellee Friday’s restaurant. Appellant was eating a fried clam strip when she bit into a hard substance
Premium Appeal Law Civil procedure
1. 4–3. Business Torts. Medtronic‚ Inc.‚ is a medical technology company that competes for customers with St. Jude Medical S.C.‚ Inc. James Hughes worked for Medtronic as a sales manager. His contract prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving Medtronic. Hughes sought a position as a sales director for St. Jude. St. Jude told Hughes that his contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit‚ alleging wrongful interference
Premium Contract Tort Reasonable person
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4811 July 31‚ 1953 CHARLES F. WOODHOUSE‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ vs. FORTUNATO F. HALILI‚ defendant-appellant. Tañada‚ Pelaez & Teehankee for defendant and appellant. Gibbs‚ Gibbs‚ Chuidian & Quasha for plaintiff and appellant. LABRADOR‚ J.: On November 29‚ 1947‚ the plaintiff entered on a written agreement‚ Exhibit A‚ with the defendant‚ the most important provisions of which are (1) that they shall organize
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Defendant
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Linda Ray Webster University Abstract Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services is a sexual discrimination case in which the Fifth Circuit court ruled in the case of the defendant Sundowner Offshore Services that same sex discrimination was not pursuable under Title VII. The US Supreme Court reversed that decision by stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long at it places the victim
Premium Sexual harassment Gender Abuse
Case Brief – Extra Credit Citation: SPECTRUM STORES INC‚ Plaintiffs - Appellants v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; SAUDI ARABIAN OIL COMPANY‚ doing business as Saudi Aramco; Defendants - Appellees. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 632 F.3d 938 (2011) Facts: Gasoline retailers accused the OPEC member nations of fix pricing of crude oil and refined petroleum products in the US. The appellants argued that the district court mischaracterized their complaint as alleging a conspiracy
Premium Petroleum Saudi Arabia United States
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
Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United States v. Dentsply International‚ Inc.‚ Court: United States of Appeals‚ Third Circuit. Date: Argued September 21‚ 2004. February 24‚ 2005 Citation: 399 F.3d 181 Facts: This is an antitrust case that the defendant- Dentsply international‚ Inc.‚ is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates
Premium United States Competition law Competition
Introduction The case of Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575‚ [2002] HCA 56 raised the legal principle of defamation and its application when committed over the internet. In this instance‚ an article published on 30 October 2000 in a weekly financial magazine‚ a magazine which in turn was published by Dow Jones & Company Inc (‘Dow Jones’). The article‚ entitled ‘Unholy Gains’ alleged that Joseph Gutnick (‘Gutnick’) was connected to a jailed money launderer and tax evader and was
Premium Jury United States Law
John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo‚ INC. 1. (a)What are the facts and (b) sources of law in this case? a. Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle‚ Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion‚ titled "Pepsi Stuff‚" attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign‚ PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation‚’ in order to gain
Premium Contract
Case Analyses March 12‚ 2012 Burlington Industries‚ Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) I. FACTS: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job as a sales person at Burlington Industries after working there for 15 months. Her reasoning was that her supervisor‚ Ted Slowik‚ was sexually harassing her. Ellerth did not inform any other supervisors‚ and therefore the company was unaware of Slowik’s actions with Ellerth. Despite her refusals with Slowik’s advances‚ Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation
Premium Employment Appeal Lawyer