Exam 1 (cases) Flashcards
Cheap escape v. Haddox
- Holding: Municipal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial matters except in limited statutorily created circumstances.
- Reasoning: choice of venue” clauses in contracts can’t override a complete lack of jurisdictional ties that the case has, at least when it comes to municipal courts (the contract said the case would be heard in Franklin County Municipal court, it was filed there, no one showed up so the court ordered a default judgement, then after the fact the defendant said “it doesn’t count because nothing about this case happened in Franklin County”, and the appeal courts agreed. The only tie to Franklin County was the contract said that’s where they agreed to litigate any dispute)
Rule of law: subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by forum-selection clauses, rather these are only valid in places where jurisdiction is already preserved.
Dupont v. Christophers
Holding: Under Texas law aerial photography of plant construction is an improper means of obtaining an- other’s trade secrets and is actionable in tort
Reasoning: There does not have to be a breach of confidence or illegal conduct like trespass in order to sue for wrongfully obtaining trade secrets
Rule of law: The holder of a trade secret can sue another for obtaining knowledge of the trade secret without having spent the time or money to discover it on their own, unless the holder discloses the trade secret voluntarily, or if the holder does not take reasonable precautions to protect its secrecy
Swoboda v. Hero Decks
- Holding: the defendant, Parody Productions, LLC, lacked sufficient connections with Louisiana to establish personal jurisdiction. defendant’s activities within Louisiana, while interactive and transactional, did not establish purposeful availment. Despite the internet-based transactions, the defendant’s connections weren’t enough to assert personal jurisdiction, as the link between the defendant’s contact with Louisiana and the plaintiff’s cause of action was deemed weak.
- Reasoning: The court concluded that the defendant’s activities within Louisiana, while interactive and transactional, did not establish purposeful availment. Despite the internet-based transactions, the defendant’s connections weren’t enough to assert personal jurisdiction, as the link between the defendant’s contact with Louisiana and the plaintiff’s cause of action was deemed weak.
- Rule of law: The court upheld the lower court’s ruling that the defendant, Parody Productions, LLC, lacked sufficient connections with Louisiana to establish personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s interactive website allowed Louisiana residents to make purchases, but the court determined that the defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the state’s laws. The court adopted the sliding scale approach from Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., wherein passive websites do not establish jurisdiction: The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the internet merchant, Parody Productions, LLC, did not have enough connections with Louisiana to be subject to personal jurisdiction.
Johnson v. Cintas
- Holding: court held that because Johnson’s summons failed to accurately name the proper defendant (Cintas Corporation No. 2), the service of process failed to confer personal jurisdiction over that defendant
- Reasoning: Johnson failed to name Cintas No. 2 as a defendant in his summons and complaint, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02(1) and 801.09(1). Therefore, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2, regardless of whether or not the defect prejudiced Cintas No. 2 and regardless of the manner in which Cintas No. 2 held itself out to the public or to Johnson specifically.
- Rule of law: circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No. 2
Idnani v. Venus Capital Management
- Holding: plaintiffs motion for default judgment against venus is dismissed but venus must pay fees
- Reasoning: The parties have presented various documents relating to their dispute. In evaluating the pending motion, a court may take into account “matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint,” Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477 (2000), quoting 5A C.A. Wright & A.R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1357, at 299 (1990), in addition to documents attached to a defendant’s motion, where the plaintiff had notice of those documents and relied upon them in framing the complaint, Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 45 n.4 (2004). The Court has not considered materials that would warrant treating the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment.
- Rule of law: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to all claims against defendants Venus Investment Partners, LLC, Venus Arbitrage Fund, L.P. and Venus Special Situations Fund, L.P
Utah v. Timmerman
- Holding: district court denied the motion and held that the admission of Mrs. Timmerman’s statements did not violate Mr. Timmerman’s constitutional rights or Mrs. Timmerman’s spousal testimonial privilege
- Reasoning: Constitutional spousal testimonial privilege applies only to compelled, in-court testimony. Her statements are allowed to be admissible in court.
- Rule of law: Timmerman was not force to testify in court room or to given involuntary testimony against her husband. Prosecutor using Mrs. Timmerman voluntary statement to the police and SANE nurse did not violate her spousal testimony privilege.
Fontenot v. Taser International
Holding: TASER’s Motion for Rule 50 JNOV, Rule 59 New Trial, or Remittitur, (Doc. No. 141), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will DENY the portions of TASER’s Motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, but will GRANT the portion of TASER’s motion seeking remittitur
Reasoning: affirmed in part, where the district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff on the liability aspect of the negligence claim in accordance with the jury’s verdict; but 2) vacated in part and remanded, where the damages award is not supported by the evidence.
Rule of law: (1) whether the theory or method employed by the expert has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community; (2) whether the method has been subject to peer-review and publication; (3) whether the method employed can be and has been tested; and (4) whether the known or potential rate of error and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique is acceptable
Joy Salmon v. Virginia Atkinson
Holding: The Supreme Court of Arkansas agreed with Atkinson, stating a client that enters in a contingent-fee contract with an attorney, the client would still have to pay the attorney if the attorney is later let go.
Reasoning: The main reason to their decision was when they applied the New York rule to the existing evidence, they saw that the trial courts made no error. “A client cannot terminate the agreement and then resurrect the contingency term when the discharged attorney files a fee claim
Rule of law:Court adopted the “New York Rule” in determining the quantum meruit fee. This rule states that quantum meruit fee should be paid before the end of the original trial. the contingent fee contract was void once salmon discharged atkinson. so action for quantum merit fee could be pursued. Court applied it to their decision in favor of the appellees.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
Holding: The proponents of California’s ban on same-sex marriage did not have standing to appeal the district court’s order invalidating the ban
Reasoning: Supreme court and 9th circuit did not have authority to decide this case on merits, because petitioners had no standing in case
Rule of law: The Supreme Court held that federal courts only have the authority to decide cases in which there is an “actual controversy,” which means that the complaining party must have suffered a “concrete and particularized injury” that can be redressed through court action. In this case, because the petitioners had only a generalized grievance in the form of a desire to defend Proposition 8, they did not have standing under Article III. The Court also held that the petitioners could not invoke the standing of the state to appeal because a litigant must assert his/her own rights and cannot claim relief through the intervention of a third party. Because the petitioners did not have standing to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that court did not have jurisdiction to reach a decision on the case.
Chafin v. Chafin
Holding: The Court held that the controversy is not moot just because the child had already returned to Scotland.
Reasoning: court still has personal jurisdiction over her and can order the child to return. Even though Ms. Chafin can refuse to follow the order it does not make the case moot because courts can adjudicate in areas where relief is not practical.
Rule of law: The Hague Convention mandates the prompt return of children to their countries of habitual residence. But such return does not render this case moot; there is a live dispute between the parties over where their child will be raised, and there is a possibility of effectual relief for the prevailing parent. The courts below therefore continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the parties’ respective claims.
Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc
Holding: The court concluded that the one year limitation in 71P applies to all personnel injury actions brought by skiers against ski area operator arising out of skiing injuries. The plaintiff’s action was time barred, the Superior Court did not err and judgment is affirmed.
Reasoning: one yr statute of limitations for ski operators
Rule of law: one year limitation of actions provision of G.L.c. 143, § 71P
Kruckenberg v. Harvey
Holding: no res judicata. Double jeopardy can’t apply bc the first case wasn’t decided, it was dismissed
Reasoning: The court found that the parties to the Czyzewski case acknowledged that the fence line was the line of demarcation between the lots and thus that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Kruckenberg’s declaratory judgment action and mooted the trespass and conversion claims.
Rule of law: The purpose of the doctrine of claim preclusion is to prevent repetitive litigation. DePratt, 113 Wis.2d at 311, 334 N.W.2d 883.
In re boston beer
Holding: The Court held that such commonexpressions cannot function as trademarks because they “canindicate nothing but high quality,” and thus “surely wouldnot be indicative of origin to the purchasing public
Reasoning: proposed mark was found to be merely “descriptive” and “laudatory”. It did not have secondary meaning so claims of superiority should be free to all competitors
Rule of law: Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product are also regarded as being descriptive․ Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods.” 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:17 (4th ed.1996) (internal quotations omitted). “If the mark is merely descriptive it may nevertheless acquire distinctiveness or secondary meaning and be registrable under Section 1052(f), although ․ the greater the degree of descriptiveness the term has, the heavier the burden to prove it has attained secondary meaning.” In Re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317 n. 4, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1728 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted). To acquire secondary meaning, section 1052(f) requires that the mark must have become “distinctive of the applicant’s goods.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) (1994).
BMG Music v. Gonzalez
Holding: The court held that defendant’s unauthorized downloading and retention of copyright protected works was not fair use
Reasoning: courts did not agree that Gonzalez’s downloading of songs with the purpose of “sampling” qualified as a fair use. Gonzalez was not engaged in a nonprofit use; she downloaded (and kept) whole copyrighted songs […]; and she did this despite the fact that these works often are sold per song as well as per album
Rule of law: The files that Gonzalez obtained, by contrast, were posted in violation of copyright law; there was no license covering a single transmission or hearing – and, to repeat.” In other words, according to this narrow reading of Sony, because Gonzalez did not erase the songs from her computer after listening to them once the downloaded songs could be viewed as a substitute for purchasing the songs.
Favorite v. Miller
Holding: The trial court ruled in favor of the Favorites, determining that the piece was mislaid and therefore belonged to the Favorites because it was located on their property
Reasoning: Claim of the owner is stronger. Landower has right to all items found on his property. miller trespassed so he is not entitled.
Rule of law: A landowner has a greater right to an item found on his property than does the individual who trespasses onto his land and finds it.
