In this case “Anthony Walden vs. Gina Fiore” they are trying to figure out if the state of Nevada has the right to exercise personal jurisdiction over the case. On August 8, 2006 TSA at San Juan airport searched Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson and their bags where they found about 97,000 dollars cash, Fiore told them that they were just extreme gamblers that had just finished gambling at a local spot El San Juan. Also, she stated that she was a resident of California and Nevada and she planned to catch the flight to Atlanta then take a connected flight to Nevada. Even with that large sum of money they were cleaned and boarded the flight and departed to Atlanta. A law enforcement officer from the San Juan airport contacted the petitioner task force…
One trucking company owner, Tanya Trucker owns a company that is located in the state of Denial. Ms. Trucker is not happy with the additional expenses that this statute will cost her business. Her intentions are to file suit against the state of Confusion to have this statute overturned. However, before this can happens Ms. Trucker must establish which state would have jurisdiction to rule on the case. In this case both parties reside in different states. Diversity of citizenship occurs if a case between (1) citizens of different states, (2) a citizen of a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign country, or (3) a citizen of a state and a foreign country, where the foreign country is the plaintiff. (Cheeseman 2010)…
A fast food chain filed an action in the trial court to compel a town's building inspector to issue a building permit and to review the denial by the town's board of selectmen of the chain's application for a common victualler's license. All parties agreed that the chain was entitled to a building permit, but the trial court affirmed the decision that denied the application for a common victualler's license. The chain appealed. The court determined that there was no evidence that the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the license and there was no basis for disturbing the board's decision. The court also determined that the decision was not tainted by the participation of a member of the board who was employed by a competitor of the fast food chain.…
(2) Legal Issue: Should California have general jurisdiction in order to grant Gator a declaratory judgment against L.L. Bean? Did L.L. Bean have a “consistent and substantial pattern of business relations”, in the state of California, in order to facilitate general jurisdiction?…
This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented in this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because plaintiff is a resident of Illinois and the defendant is a citizen of Missouri and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of fees and costs.…
This Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because this Court should apply the law of East Kansas. This case involves a conflict of law issue because West Kansas’s law provides that worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees, who are victims of intentional torts, while East Kansas says that worker’s compensation is not the exclusive remedy. Under the governmental interest approach to conflicts of law, this Court should resolve this conflict in favor of East Kansas because it has an interest in applying its law, while West Kansas does not.…
In the case of Dred Scott, he told the court that Sanford and himself were citizens of two different states. However, the court makes it quite clear that Dred Scott is not a citizen of Missouri; and because he is not a citizen he does not have the right to sue in a federal court. Throughout the case the court gives several reasons why Dred Scott is not considered a citizen of Missouri. They use excerpts from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to prove that because Dred Scott is of the African race he can never become a citizen, free or not. After the court officially decided that Dred Scott is not a citizen and does not have the right to sue; because of this, the court does not have the jurisdiction to make a decision on…
The case involving Brandy Austin filing an action against Nestle in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota for contamination of infant formula with Enterobacter saka-zakii bacteria should be transferred from a Minnesota to a South Carolina venue. This is true because when it comes to the location of jurisdiction for a trial, venue is concerned with the most appropriate location for a trial. The venue is to be chosen based on where it may be more appropriate or convenient to hear the case, and also in the geographic neighborhood where the incident occurred or where the party resides. In this case the venue should be changed from Minnesota to South Carolina because the alleged tortuous action on the party of Nestle occurred in South Carolina and also Austin is a South Carolina resident and gave birth to her daughter in South Carolina.…
1. The Chinese dynasties during this period encountered the continuity of political practices from earlier traditional Chinese dynasties. For example, one specific aspect in the Tang dynasty were revived during the Ming dynasty such as the Tang code. During the Ming dynasty, Hongwu established the draft of a new Confucian law code, the Daming Lu, which repeated assorted clauses found in the Tang code years ago. During the Qing dynasty, emperor Kangxi’s economical changes helped him throughout his reign.…
Personal jurisdiction “is defined as the power of the court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant having some contact with the place the court is located” (Kubasek, N. 2012). The business owners of this case, Chris, Matt, and Ian, all live in California. They sell an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the Internet, and contract this business through a company called Novelty Now Inc. that is based in Florida. The company Funny Face committed fraud by substituting a lower cost chemical emulsifier to increase the profit margin. This chemical is not FDA approved.…
The Second Circuit has noted that, “customary international law has not to date recognized liability for corporations that violate its norms . . . [and] no international tribunal has ever held a corporation liable.” Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has held that corporations can be liable under the ATS. To discern if a customary international law exists the Ninth Circuit considers whether the offense in question is “limited to states and whether its application depends on the identity of the perpetrator.” In Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc, the court concluded that “ the prohibition against slavery is universal and may be asserted against the corporate defendants . . . [because] non-state actors were held liable at Nuremberg for slavery offenses.”…
Hallin, Daniel C., The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Los Angles: California University of California Press, 1986.…
The 2008 2L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law presented a case which was argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, case number 82A04-8876-CV-285, Deborah White vs. Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a O’Malley’s Tavern.…
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Agresti, 2009, para. 2). Based on a simple reading of this, it would seem that people do have the right to own and use firearms. So why are so many people trying to ban guns? Maybe it is because they do not understand what the Second Amendment actually means. Maybe it is because the media only reports the crimes committed with guns and not the lives saved with them. What would happen to the crime rate in the United States if guns were banned altogether as other countries have done? While some people think guns should be banned, it has been proven that criminals will still find ways to obtain them and the crime rate will rise.…
Mikula, Mark F., L. Mabunda Mpho, and Allison Marion McClintic. Great American Court Cases. Detroit: Gale Group, 1999. Print.…