Cases

Question 1

Soldano v. O’Daniels Background

Answer 1

Soldano was in a dangerous fight at a saloon and someone went across the street to a bar to ask to use the phone of the hotel to call police and alert them of the fight. The hotel person refused use of the phone. In the mean time, Soldano was shot and killed. The owner of the hotel is the defendant and argues they were not required to allow use of their phone.

Question 2

Soldano v. O’Daniels Decision

Answer 2

appellate court reversed and remanded the case for retrial

Question 3

Soldano v. O’Daniels Opinion

Answer 3

special relationships create duties to act-although the bartender did not have a duty to act in this case, he did have a duty to not interfere with someone else trying to act.

Question 4

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Background

Answer 4

two men running to catch a train hit a package they were carrying and it contained fireworks so then it exploded. The shock knocked a scale from its resting position at the other end of the platform and it hit Palsgraf. Palsgraf originally won the case and then the Railroad Co. appealed

Question 5

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Decision

Answer 5

court of appeals reversed judgement for Palsgraf.

Question 6

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Opinion

Answer 6

defendant is not liable if they could not have foreseen injuring the plaintiff, even though their negligent conduct caused the plaintiff harm (there was no duty owed by the company or its employees to Ms. Palsgraf, so it could not be breached)

Question 7

Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. Background

Answer 7

Ship owned by Kinsman broke free of its negligently secured mooring and struck another ship. They both floated down stream and formed a dam with a bridge. Water backed up and froze over and caused damage to shops within 3 miles of the bridge. (bridge crew was notified to raise bridge but didn’t due to shift change staffing shortage)

Question 8

Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. Decision

Answer 8

Kinsman, Continental (other boat), and City of Buffalo (bridge) were all found liable

Question 9

Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. Opinion

Answer 9

insecurely moored ship could obviously cause harm, failing to open bridge could obviously cause harm-3 miles down river is an insane amount of damage (outside the perceived zone of danger)-even though the exact nature of the crash and damage was unforeseeable, the general nature of the damage was foreseeable

Question 10

Nowogroski Insurance Inc. v. Rucker Facts

Answer 10

3 employees left Nowogroski Insurance Co. 2 brought hard copies of customer lists to the new company and one brought a memorized list. Trial court said they misappropriated trade secrets (memorized guy was not found guilty). Now. appealed.

Question 11

Nowogroski Insurance Inc. v. Rucker Decision

Answer 11

Appeals court ruled that there is no legal distinction between written and memorized info and remanded for recalculation of damages. Supreme court of Washington affirmed this. - they got the third guy

Question 12

Nowogroski Insurance Inc. v. Rucker Opinion

Answer 12

you can take general skills/knowledge but not trade secrets from job to job
-damages occur when trade secret is used to try and be a competitive advantage

Question 13

what does it take for a customer list to be a trade secret?

Answer 13

• list is a compilation of info
• valuable b/c unknown to others
• owner has made reasonable attempts to keep it secret

Question 14

Walmart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers facts

Answer 14

walmart made an outside partner make clothes that looked similar to the successful Samara Brothers line (they even sent photos to the makers of the Samara Brothers clothes). District court awarded damages/injunctive relief. 2nd circuit court confirmed

Question 15

Walmart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers decision

Answer 15

court of appeals reversed (walmart won)

Question 16

Walmart Stores Inc. v. Samara Brothers opinion

Answer 16

design is only protected under the Lanham Act if it proves to have a secondary meaning (like color)

Question 17

Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School facts

Answer 17

Steinberg brought action against the school for rejecting his application based on not having family connections to the school instead of judging it based on their listed criteria. Trial court granted schools motion to dismiss

Question 18

Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School decision

Answer 18

dismissal reversed and case remanded

Question 19

Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School opinion

Answer 19

steinberg and the school entered a contract-school must fulfill what it states
-an agreement meeting all the requirements of a contract is binding and legally enforceable

Question 20

Thor Properties v. Willspring Holdings LLC facts

Answer 20

breach of contract-brought by Thor
Basically they were in negotiations of a contract over several days. Several counter offers were presented back and forth between the two co.s. Eventually the selling company said they were glad to reach an agreement and said they’d walk away if counteroffered. Thor emailed final LOI and Willspring had contracted the building to a third party.

Question 21

Thor Properties v. Willspring Holdings LLC decision

Answer 21

supreme court granted Willspring’s motion to dismiss; Thor countered, but still lost

Question 22

Thor Properties v. Willspring Holdings LLC opinion

Answer 22

there were really only a bunch of counteroffers btw the two parties, which generally operate as rejection and thus terminate the power of acceptance.