Bus Law Cases

Question 1

Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County

Answer 1

1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech

Child molester says his 1st amendment right is being taken away because he has the whole internet restricted. Court agrees and his restriction changes to only websites associated with children.

Question 2

People v. Sisuphan

Answer 2

Embezzlement

Sisuphan embezzles $30k from the employers safe and thought a fellow coworker would be blamed and terminated. His defense was that he returned the money but that is irrelevant and he was convicted.

Question 3

State of Minnesota v. Smith

Answer 3

Burglary

There were burglaries of two homes and a tennis center. The suspect Smith was resent at the scene of the crime and was in possession of the stolen items proving he committed the crime.

Question 4

Johnson v. Shaffer

Answer 4

Business Ethics

Dirty mechanic, Shaffer, withheld Johnsons truck after not fixing the issue it had multiple times.

Question 5

Espresso Disposition Corp. v. Santana Sales & Marketing Group Inc.

Answer 5

Venue

An appeal was filled for a lawsuit for breach of contract between two companies. It was unsure whether the suit should take place in Florida or Illinois. Venue ended up being proper in Illinois and both parties agreed.

Question 6

Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions

Answer 6

Unconscionable Arbitration Agreement

Lhotka sued for wrongful death after her son died during a GeoEx expedition. They decide to create an arbitration agreement. However, the agreement was unconscionable because it was one-sided towards GeoEx.

Question 7

Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoquing

Answer 7

Jurisdiction

Fraudulent Gucci items sold over the internet. The issue was concerning jurisdiction and because jurisdiction can be exercised over a foreign defendant it was allowed.

Question 8

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.

Answer 8

Jurisdiction

Boat explosion. The issue was jurisdiction, and since both parties were from the Virgin Islands it was personal jurisdiction.

Question 9

Wilson Sporting Goods v. Hickcox

Answer 9

Product Liability

Hickcox bought an umpire mask from Wilson Sporting Goods. There was a design defect in the umpire mask which caused Hickcox to be injured. Hickcox sued and court sided with him under strict liability - product liability.

Question 10

Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle

Answer 10

Negligence (defense: assumption of the risk)

Taylor was attending a baseball game and was stuck in the face by a fly ball. She sued, but prior to going to the game she knew that her seats could be at risk of a fly ball. The court favored Baseball Club of Seattle under the negligence defense of assumption of the risk.

Question 11

Rylands v. Fletcher

Answer 11

Strict Liability - Ultra Hazardous Materials/Abnormally Dangerous

Rylands and Fletcher were neighbors. Rylands had a water reservoir on his property and Fletchers mine shafts were broken which caused water from the reservoir to enter. This caused Fletcher a heavy loss and he sued Rylands. Rylands is liable.

Question 12

Lucy v. Zehmer

Answer 12

Contracts - Offer

Zehmir made an offer to sell his farm to Lucy. Zehmir claimed he was drunk during the contract but the was in fact not, he was of sound mind to make an offer/contract so he had to pay up.

Question 13

Mckee v. Laurion

Answer 13

Defamation

Dr. Mckee treated Laurions’ father and afterwards Laurion posted negative comments and reviews about Dr. Mckee. The doctor sued but because the comments were all true it was not defamation.

Question 14

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

Answer 14

Negligence - Causation (unforeseeable)

A man catching a train dropped his box of fireworks and they exploded, causing injuries to the bystander Palsgraf. She sues but it was unforeseeable for the man who helped the man with the package on the train to know that the box contained fireworks.

Question 15

Revel v. Guido

Answer 15

Fraud

Guido informed Revell that the septic system of the house was brand new. Revell bought the house and a week later the septic system broke.
Guido was convicted of fraud and damages were awarded to Revell.

Question 16

Blake v. Giustibelli

Answer 16

Defamation

False statements were published by Blake to harm Giustibelli’s reputation. The court favored Giustibelli and awarded him $350k in damages.

Question 17

Loft v. Guth

Answer 17

Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty

An officer high up in a company makes a new competing company. Since he can’t finance his new company he embezzled from his old company. He also stole their recipe and used it for his own benefit. All three elements were violated: commingling of funds, conflict of interest, and usurpation of corporation opportunity.

Question 18

Coker v. Pershad

Answer 18

Independent Contractors

AAA member is subs out their work to a tow truck driver, the driver shows up angry and commits assault and batter towards the customer who called AAA. The costumer sues AAA but because the truck driver was not their employee they are not liable under independent contractors.

Question 19

Joel v. Morison

Answer 19

Frolic and Detour - under respondent superior

A master hires a servant to sell goods for him in a specific area. When the area is overfilled with other vendors, the servant decides to move his cart further away from the area. He ends up crashing and injuring a a bystander. The bystander sues and the master is still liable for his servant under frolic and detour. The servant was still acting under the scope of employment when he took the detour.

Question 20

Azur v. Chase Bank

Answer 20

Agency of Estoppel

Azur hired a secretary and at the initial hire he had her signed a paper saying she was allowed to write out checks on Azur’s behalf. Years later she is embezzling from Azur and using the money. When Azur finds out, he fires her and sues the company. Since the secretary was given the power to take out the money, and kept doing so, Azur is liable and not the company.

Question 21

Krell v. Henry

Answer 21

Frustration of Purpose

A renter wanted to rent out an apartment from a landlord for the day to view the king’s coronation. Both parties were aware of the intent of the contract. When The king falls ill, the coronation is canceled and the renter no longer rents out the apartment. The landlord sues but the renters defense is frustration of purpose because they both knew the reasoning behind the contract.

Question 22

Messerschmidt v. Mellender

Answer 22

4th Amendment: Unreasonable Search

search warrant issued by two police officers to search a house.
People of the home sued saying that the warrant is not valid and it was an unreasonable search, but the cops appealed because the search warrant was legal.

Question 23

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 23

5th Amendment: Right to Remain Silent and 6th Amendment: Right to an Attorney

Miranda says he was coerced into confessing to the crime of kidnapping/rape because he was not informed about his right to plead the fifth and his right to an attorny being present. This lead to the Miranda Rights where one must be informed of self-incrimintation and their right to an attorney being present when they are being arrested

Question 24

Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Answer 24

Necessity is NOT a Defense to Murder

Three men are lost at sea on a lifeboat with no food. Dudley and Stephens kill and eat the weaker man on the lifeboat in order to survive. They are found three days later and convicted of murder because necessity is a valid defense for murder.

Question 25

Roach v. Stern

Answer 25

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The transcript from Stern and his codependents on the radio station shows enough evidence to prove that the defendants were “extreme and outrageous’ in their conduct with mishandling the remains of Tay.

Question 26

Katko v. Briney

Answer 26

Deadly Force CANNOT be used to protect personal property

Britney set up a shotgun trap to protect his property from trespassers. When Katko was injured from the trap, Briney was liable because he used deadly force to protect his property.

Question 27

Blankenship v. Collier

Answer 27

Summary Judgement Motion

Collier was unable to provide witnesses/evidence that supported his negligence claim against Dr. Blankenship so a summary judgment motion was made.

Question 28

Raffles v. Wichelhaus

Answer 28

Bilateral Mistake (Defense to Contracts)

A merchant who needs to ship goods from India to the U.S. so they seek out a shipping company. Merchant contracts with Peerless Shipping company which has many different vessels to ship out goods on different days. Peerless thinks it’s going out the next month while the merchant thinks it’s going out the next day. Both parties were mutually mistaken.

Question 29

The Jacobs and Youngs v. Kent

Answer 29

Substantial Performance

The Jacobs and Youngs construction company was doing full build for the Kents. The contract had a promise that stated when they got to the plumbing part, a specific plumping was required. The construction company cannot locate the specified piping but replace it with the same if not better quality of the piping wanted. The company wants the money, the kents deny the money, and the company sues for breach of contract. The kents knew about the other piping for five years before they complained and the quality of the piping was equal or even better so the court sided with The Jacobs and Youngs construction company.