BUS LAW COURT CASES

rylands v fletcher

deals with strict liability

the revell v guido

deals with fraud

wilson sporting goods v hickcox

deals with design defect (product liability)

johnson v medtronic

deals with label failure

blake v giustibelli

deals with defamation/libel (lawyer)

mckee v laurion

deals with defamation/libel (doctor)

raffles v wichelhaus

deals with bilateral mistake

jacobson youngs v kent

deals with substantial performance

hamer v sidway

deals with assignments

coker v pershad

deals with independent contractors

azur v chase bank

deals with implied/implicit authority

gucci v wang huoqing

deals with personal jdx

blankenship v collier

deals with summary judgement motion

minnesota v smith

deals with burglary

katko v briney

deals with defense of property

queens v dudley and stephens

deals with necessity

doe v marion county

deals with first amendment

messerschimidt v millender

deals with fourth amendment

mala v crown bay

I- venue, personal jdx

R- same as I

A- both pacific islanders, same venue

C- no jdx

espresso v santana

I- venue, contract mistake

R- due process

A- contract is still binding even if there was a mistake

C- venue is set in illinois, not florida

lhotka v geographical expeditions

I- is arbitration agreement unenforceable?

R- arbitration

A- arbitration cost does not equal cost of a life

C- found in favor of the mother, arbitration dissolved

people v sisuphan

I- was there intent to embezzle?

R- embezzlement

A- there was intent to frame, so there was intent to embezzle funds even if they were given back

C- found against sisuphan

miranda v arizona

I- fifth amendment privilege

R- same as I

A- miranda was not read his rights, confession is void

C- conviction was overturned

roach v stern

I- intentional infliction of emotional distress

R- same as I

A- stern used extreme, unusual, and inappropriate behavior
C- appeal was granted in favor of roach

palsgraff v long island rr

I- causation/foreseeability

R- same as I

A- box was unmarked, no way to know explosives were in the box

C- railroad found not liable

taylor v baseball club

I- assumption of risk

R- same as I

A- avid baseball fan, assumed risk when the ticket was bought

C- baseball club not liable

lucy v zehmer

I- offer, contract, intoxication

R- present contractual intent, certain and definite terms (QTIPS)

A- offer was accepted before drink was consumed, no intoxication at time of acceptance

C- famer gives up title

krell v henry (king’s coronation)

I- frustration of purpose

R- same as I

A- event did not happen, so the contract is void until the event takes place/service takes place

C- case was excused/dismissed

joel v morrison

I- respondeat superior/vicariously liability

R- same as I

A- servant was still under scope of employment when event took place

C- master found responsible