cases

Question 2

Snyder v. Turk (1993)
key facts

Answer 2

Surgeon grabbed nurse’s shoulder and pulled her face toward a surgical opening.

Question 3

Cohen v. Smith (1995)
key facts

Answer 3

Patient’s religious beliefs prohibited being seen unclothed by men; male nurse touched her during surgery.

Question 4

Garratt v. Dailey (1955)
key facts

Answer 4

5-year-old moved chair causing woman to fall.

Question 5

Baska v. Scherzer (2007)
key facts

Answer 5

Plaintiff injured trying to break up a fight between two teens.

Question 6

Cullison v. Medley (1991)
key facts

Answer 6

Family entered Cullison’s home, threatened him with a holstered gun.

Question 7

McCann v. Wal-Mart (2000)
key facts

Answer 7

Employees detained family on suspicion of theft, blocked exits.

Question 8

Wal-Mart v. Mitchell (1994)
key facts

Answer 8

Customer falsely accused of shoplifting and detained.

Question 9

Bradley v. American Smelting (1985)
key facts

Answer 9

Microscopic particles from smelter settled on plaintiff’s land.

Question 10

SVA v. Kuprewicz (2003)
key facts

Answer 10

Former employee caused spam emails and unauthorized access to system.

Question 11

Travelers Ins. v. Smith (1999)
key facts

Answer 11

Insurance agent harassed and threatened employee with sexual advances.

Question 12

GTE Southwest v. Bruce (1999)
key facts

Answer 12

Supervisor intimidated, cursed at, and invaded personal space of employees repeatedly.

Question 13

Snyder v. Turk (1993)
legal issue

Answer 13

Whether the surgeon’s actions constituted battery.

Question 14

Cohen v. Smith (1995)
legal issue

Answer 14

Whether unauthorized contact violating religious beliefs constitutes battery.

Question 15

Garratt v. Dailey (1955)
legal issue

Answer 15

Whether a child can be liable for battery if he knew the result was substantially certain.

Question 16

Baska v. Scherzer (2007)
legal issue

Answer 16

Whether intent transfers in a battery claim.

Question 17

Cullison v. Medley (1991)
legal issue

Answer 17

Whether actions created reasonable apprehension to support assault.

Question 18

McCann v. Wal-Mart (2000)
legal issue

Answer 18

Whether the detention constituted false imprisonment.

Question 19

Wal-Mart v. Mitchell (1994)
legal issue

Answer 19

Whether probable cause exists to defeat false imprisonment claim.

Question 20

Bradley v. American Smelting (1985)
legal issue

Answer 20

Whether intangible invasions can constitute trespass.

Question 21

SVA v. Kuprewicz (2003)
legal issue

Answer 21

Whether misuse of digital resources is trespass to chattels.

Question 22

Travelers Ins. v. Smith (1999)
legal issue

Answer 22

Whether conduct met IIED standards.

Question 23

GTE Southwest v. Bruce (1999)
legal issue

Answer 23

Whether conduct rose to the level of IIED.

Question 24

Snyder v. Turk (1993)
holding

Answer 24

Yes, battery can occur when offensive contact is made with intent.

Question 25

Cohen v. Smith (1995) holding

Answer 25

Yes, unwanted physical contact, even without harm, can be battery if known to be offensive.

Question 26

Garratt v. Dailey (1955) holding

Answer 26

Yes, intent includes knowledge to a substantial certainty.

Question 27

Baska v. Scherzer (2007) holding

Answer 27

Yes, intent to hit one person can transfer to another who is injured.

Question 28

Cullison v. Medley (1991) holding

Answer 28

Yes, assault includes actions causing apprehension of imminent harm.

Question 29

McCann v. Wal-Mart (2000) holding

Answer 29

Yes, confinement without legal authority is false imprisonment.

Question 30

Wal-Mart v. Mitchell (1994) holding

Answer 30

No, lack of reasonable grounds made detention unlawful.

Question 31

Bradley v. American Smelting (1985) holding

Answer 31

Yes, tangible invasions like particles can be trespass if intentional.

Question 32

SVA v. Kuprewicz (2003) holding

Answer 32

Yes, interference with computer systems qualifies as trespass to chattels.

Question 33

Travelers Ins. v. Smith (1999) holding

Answer 33

Yes, repeated and threatening behavior constituted extreme and outrageous conduct.

Question 34

GTE Southwest v. Bruce (1999) holding

Answer 34

Yes, persistent verbal abuse and intimidation constituted extreme and outrageous conduct.

Question 35

Jacobson v. Hofgard (2016)

Answer 35

Buyers purchased a townhouse advertised as 'newly renovated' and having an 'English basement with full kitchen.' Defendants failed to disclose code violations and defects.

Question 36

Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Aurora Air Service (1979)

Answer 36

Aurora sued Alyeska for tortious interference after Alyeska pressured a third-party supplier to breach its agreement with Aurora.

Question 37

Johnston v. Palmer (2007)

Answer 37

Johnston alleged Palmer made false statements about property boundaries, leading him to mistakenly build a structure on land he didn’t own.

Question 38

Jacobson v. Hofgard (2016)

Answer 38

Did technically true statements combined with omissions constitute fraudulent misrepresentation?

Question 39

Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Aurora Air Service (1979)

Answer 39

Did Alyeska intentionally interfere with Aurora’s economic relationship without justification?

Question 40

Johnston v. Palmer (2007)

Answer 40

Was Palmer liable for fraudulent misrepresentation based on statements about property boundaries?

Question 41

Jacobson v. Hofgard (2016)

Answer 41

Yes. The court ruled that omissions can render otherwise true statements misleading, creating a basis for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Question 42

Alyeska Pipeline Service v. Aurora Air Service (1979)

Answer 42

Yes. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld liability for intentional interference, finding that Alyeska's pressure lacked proper justification and harmed Aurora’s business.

Question 43

Johnston v. Palmer (2007)

Answer 43

Yes. The court found Palmer knowingly misled Johnston, and Johnston justifiably relied on those statements, supporting a fraud claim.