BUS LAW FINAL CASES & FRQ

Blankenship v. Collier (MCQ)

Summary Judgement

Trial Process

1. Bench Judge or Jury Trial

2. Jury Selection - Voir Dire

3. Opening Statement

4. Direct

5. Cross Exam

6. Leading questions

7. Closing arguments

8. Jury instructions if you ONLY have a jury trial

9. Verdict

10. Motion for a new trial

11. Appellate review

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina Inc (BOTH)

Issue: Jurisdiction

Rule: Personal Jurisdiction

Analysis: Found both to be Virgin Islanders

Conclusion: The court found that both parties were deemed Virgin Islanders - No Jurisdiction

Gucci v. Wang

Issue: Internal Jurisdiction

Espresso v. Santana (BOTH)

Issue: Venue proper in Florida or Illinois?

Rule: Venue- what did contract state about venue

Analysis: The contract called for venue to be in Illinois

Conclusion: Venue proper for Illinois

Lhotka v. Geographic (BOTH)

Issue: arbitration unenforceable

Rule: Agreement was signed conscionable

Analysis: The arbitration clause was unfair for Lohtka to sign

Conclusion: Court allowed Lhotka to pursue the lawsuit in court

State of Minnesota v. Smith (MCQ)

Burglary

Doe v. Prosecutor (MCQ)

Issue: 1st Amendment Violation

Messerschmidt v. Millender (MCQ)

4th amendment: unlawful search and seizure

Miranda v. Arizona (BOTH)

Issue: Miranda interregated before noticing 5th amendment rights

Rule: Must be noticed about 5th amendment (right to remain silent and the right to hire attorney)

Analysis: Since miranda was not noticed and given the warnings, things miranda said may not be used in court

Conclusion: Since he was not noticed, the conviction was overturned.

Queen v. Dudley (MCQ)

necessity or murder

Katko v. Briney

Defense of property

People v. Sisuphan

Issue: Embezzlement

Rule: The trespassory taking and asportation of the personal property of another while in lawful custody

Analysis: Returning after embezzlement is not valid defense

Conclusion: guilty for embezzlement, since returning is irrelevant

Blake v. Giustibelli (MCQ)

Issue: Defamation

Revell v. Guido (MCQ)

Issue: Fraud

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (Both)

Issue: Does the plaintiff have a valid cause of action for negligence against the Long Island RR? Was the injury a result of foreseeable cause by the Long Island RR?

Rule: The injury must be a foreseeable/direct result of the breach of duty owed

Analysis: Package was not marked it was an unforeseeable event

Conclusion: Found in favor of RR. No valid cause of action for negligence.

McKee v. Laurion (MCQ)

Issue: Defamation

Rylands v Fletcher (MCQ)

Issue: Strict liability, ultra hazardous activity

Taylor v. Baseball Club (Both)

Issue: Assumption of risk? Does defendant have valid defense under assumption of risk?

Rule: Where one volitionally assumes risk involved

Analysis: Avid sports fan, knew the risks of sitting behind home plate at baseball game

Conclusion: Found in favor of BB club- Taylor knew the risks

Wilson v. Hickcox (Both)

Fact: Defect in design of umpire mask

Issue: product liability design defect?

Rule: a defective product has been placed in the stream of commerce causing damages, user, consumer and/or bystander may bring forth a lawsuit against the seller/manufacturer.

Analysis: The good (mask) had a clear design defect and didn't meet expectations of usual umpire masks on the market.

Conclusion: Found there was a defect in the design of the face mask

Lucy v. Zehmer (Both)

Issue: Valid contract? Intent or intoxication

Rule: Have to be of sound mind to make a contract

Analysis: Both parties were of sound mind at the time the contract was agreed upon

Conclusion: Valid contract, both parties were of sound mind

Roach v. Stern (Both)

Facts: Playing with the remains of a human on a radio show

Issue: Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Rule: Extreme and outrageous conduct calculated to cause and causes severe emotional distress

Analysis: Conduct by Stern and co- defendants showed enough evidence that the defendants were "extreme and outrageous" in their conduct mishandling Tay's remains

Conclusion: Appeals court found in favor of Roach, appeals court reversed the lower courts ruling.

Azur v. Chase Bank

Issue: Agency by estoppel

Joel v. Morrison (MCQ)

Issue: Agency- Respondeat Superior

Coker v. Pershad (MCQ)

Issue: Independent Contractor

Issue: Independent ContractorFacts: AAA gets independent tow truck company to help client and tower ends up assaulting client

coker

Krell v. Henry (Both)

Issue: Frustration of purpose

Rule: Underlying terms of the contract have somehow been frustrated and both parties are aware

Analysis: Both parties knew of the intended purpose of the contract but it was frustrated by kings illness

Conclusion: Court found frustration of purpose to be valid and the contract was voided out.

Hamer v. Sidway (MCQ)

Issue: Assignment

Jacobs and Youngs v. Kent (MCQ)

Issue: Substantial performance

Raffles v. Wichelhaus (MCQ)

Issue: Mutual bilateral mistake