LEGL Cases

New York Times v. Sullivan

• Added “actual malice” to the criteria only for public officials. This means that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

• The case stemmed from a 1960 full-page ad in The New York Times that criticized Alabama officials for violating the rights of African Americans. The ad was run by supporters of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A Montgomery police commissioner sued the newspaper and the civil rights leaders for defamation. New York Times won

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

• Holding – Extended the actual malice requirement to all public figures (celebrities)

• Facts – The Saturday Evening Post article claimed that Butts, who was also the former football coach of the University of Georgia, had shared Georgia's game strategies with Alabama's coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant, in a phone call that an insurance salesman, George Burnett, claimed to have overheard.

Iannelli v. Burger King Corp.

• The Iannelli family went to a Burger King restaurant.

• A group of rowdy and aggressive teenagers began harassing the family.

• The situation escalated, and one of the teenagers physically assaulted Mr. Iannelli.

• The Iannellis sued Burger King Corporation, claiming the restaurant had a duty to protect customers from foreseeable harm.

• The court ruled that while businesses are not generally liable for third-party criminal acts, an exception exists if the business could reasonably foresee the danger.

• In this case, the restaurant staff had prior warning of the teenagers' disruptive behavior but failed to take action.

• The court held that a restaurant may have a duty to intervene when it is aware of potential harm to its customers.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

• Land Mark Case regarding Proximate Cause

• This railroad employee pushes a package and accidentally drops it in front of the train. There were explosives in it and it knocked over a clock that hit Palsgraf. It was not negligence because it was not foreseeable/reasonable to prepare for that risk.

Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust et al.

• Coastal was leasing land and owed a royalty to the owner for the natural gas collected

• Coast bought land right beside the rented land and they stopped the rented pump. They collected natural gas without the royalty right by the rented land.

• Were coastal acts protected by the “rule of capture”?

  • The Court Ruled that Coastal did nothing wrong because of the right of capture. They had the right to drill as much or as little as they wanted because there was nothing in the lease agreement that required them to drill.

Briggs v. Southernwestern Energy Production Co.

• Does the “rule of capture” immunize an energy developer from liability in trespass where the developer uses hydraulic fracturing on the property it owns or leases, and such activities allow it to obtain oil or gas that migrates from beneath the surface of another person’s land? Nope, and the Texas case was cited– “Rule of Law”.

• Applied rule of capture to natural gas

Cook v. Sullivan

Key Issue: Private nuisance due to environmental damage caused by land use

• Facts: The Sullivans started construction in the wetlands beside the Cooks. They filled in the wet lands which messed with the drainage which in turn negatively affected the Cooks property.

• Did the Sullivans’ modifications to their land create a private nuisance by causing water intrusion on the Cooks' property?

  • Yes, the Sullivans created a private nuisance.

    • Take away, Landowners cannot make changes that negatively effect their neighbors.

Gottlieb and Co., Inc. v. Alps South Corportation

• Battle of the forms

• Facts: Gottlieb & Co. supplied fabric to Alps South Corporation, which used it to make prosthetic devices. Gottlieb changed the fabric composition, but did not notify Alps. Alps’ customers complained about irritation, leading to lost sales and customer dissatisfaction. Alps sued Gottlieb for breach of contract, claiming damages from the material change.

• Legal Question: Was Gottlieb liable for Alps' lost profits due to the material change, given that Gottlieb’s standard contract terms limited liability?

• Holding: Gottlieb was NOT liable for Alps' lost profits.

  • Gottlieb won because it was in their contract that the other company could not sue for limited liability clause, aka ruined reputation and loss of clients

  • Not reading a contract was not a valid excuse for Alps 

Vassilkovska v. Woodfield Nissan, Inc.

• Facts: Vassilkovska bought a car from Woodfield Nissan and signed an arbitration agreement, meaning disputes had to be settled through arbitration (not in court). However, Woodfield Nissan excluded all possible claims it might make from arbitration, meaning only Vassilkovska was bound by arbitration. Vassilkovska later sued for misrepresentation in the contract. Woodfield Nissan argued that she couldn’t sue because of the arbitration agreement.

• Legal Question: Was the arbitration agreement valid, or was it one-sided and unenforceable?

• Holding: The arbitration agreement was unenforceable.

  • A contract must have consideration (both parties must give up something of value).

  • Woodfield Nissan excluded itself from arbitration, meaning only Vassilkovska was restricted, which made the agreement one-sided.

  • A valid contract must have consideration from both parties.

  • One-sided agreements that only restrict one party may be struck down as unenforceable.

St. Louis Produce Market v. Hughes

• Hughes, a former employee of St. Louis Produce Market, was entitled to receive a severance package upon his termination.

• However, the severance agreement required Hughes to return all company property before he could receive the severance payment.

• Hughes failed to return a company-owned laptop.

• Because he did not fulfill this condition precedent, the Market was legally justified in refusing to pay him the severance.

East Capitol View Community Development Corp v. Robinson

• East Capitol View hired Robinson under a one-year employment contract.

• The company later terminated Robinson before the contract ended, claiming that a lack of funding made it impossible to continue paying her.

• Robinson sued for breach of contract

• The court ruled against East Capitol View, holding that lack of funding does not qualify as an impossibility of performance.

• The company had assumed the risk of funding uncertainty when entering the contract.

• Since the contract did not make continued funding a condition of employment, the employer was still bound to fulfill its contractual obligation

Harper v. Winston County

Battery

Ehling v. Monmounth — Ocean Hospital Service

The fucking nurse couldn’t her facebook in line