1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall LEXIS 2826I (2008) The District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2. Key Facts A. Internet Solutions Corp. (ISC)‚ which operates employment recruiting and Internet advertising websites‚ has its principal place of business in Florida. B. Tabatha Marshall‚ a resident of the State of Washington‚ was sued by ISC for making false and defamatory statements on her website. C. Marshall filed a motion to dismiss asserting
Premium Appeal Civil procedure Jurisdiction
United Parcel Service‚ Inc.” case‚ Peggy Young was employed as a part-time delivery driver for UPS. Although all drivers were required to be able to lift items weighing up to 70 pounds as an essential function of their jobs‚ the plaintiff’s duties generally included carrying lighter
Premium Gender Employment Woman
CASE NAME: Commissioner of Police of Montserrat v Cavanaugh (Brian) CITATION: [2005] UKPC 28‚ 66 WIR 206‚ [2005] All ER (D) 110 (Jul) FACTS On 18 July 1995‚ the Soufriere Hills volcano on Montserrat became active. On 3 April 1996‚ by virtue of his powers under s 3 of the Leeward Islands (Emergency Powers) Order in Council 1959‚ SRO 2206 of 1959‚ the Governor declared that a state of public emergency existed and made the Emergency Powers Regulations 1996 (No 3)‚ SRO 26 of 1996‚ which were amended
Premium United States President of the United States United States Department of Homeland Security
Assignment #2 Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority Dr. Edward Sherbert HRM 510 May 5‚ 2013 What where the legal issues in this case? The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color‚ as well as national origin‚ sex‚ religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state‚ government‚ employment agencies‚ labor organizations and federal government jobs.
Premium United States Law Civil and political rights
ii. Hypothetical 2: Accident at the gun range—P v. DC Shooting Range FACTS: Plaintiff sues DC Shooting range‚ where he is a regular‚ for its failure to prevent X‚ a high-ranking member of the gun-owner’s association affiliated with DC Shooting‚ from entering the range with a gun despite under the influence of alcohol‚ causing him to carelessly handle his weapon and accidentally shooting Plaintiff’s arm. Plaintiff built his prima facie case by alleging that on the day of the incident‚ defendant’s
Premium Law Tort Tort law
Pat Employee‚ submits the following Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I. INTRODUCTION 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
Premium Conflict of laws Choice of law Jurisdiction
The case we were provided with was Abu V. Shell Company. In this case Abu and Shell company signed a contract of 10 years on the basis of the statement by Shell company experts that the station would be able to sell 900 000 liters of petrol per year. The approximate amount was provided on the basis of being direct access to the service station from Main street. A decision made by the local council announced that there would be a change in the traffic dierect access ‚ Shell company continued the contract
Premium Contract Contract Contract law
Week 11 Case Summary : Wayne Beatty v. Canadian Mill‚ 2003 BCSC 1053 (CanLII) FACTS Mr. Wayne Beatty‚ the plaintiff brought a claim against his former employer Canadian Mill Services Association (CMSA)‚ the defendant is suing for wrongful dismissal and contending he is eligible for increased damages due to the way the dismissal was handled. The damages include an additional 13 months’ notice and for the loss of a number of fringe benefits. CMSA is a non-profit forest industry association
Premium Termination of employment Employment Board of directors
Frigaliment v. B.N.S Facts: Frigaliment sued B.N.S. There were two contracts that involved selling chickens. In the first contract B.N.S was in agreeance with selling 75‚000 pounds of 2.5-3 pounds of chicken‚ to Frigaliment. 50‚000 pounds of chicken at 2.5-3 pounds at a higher price were agreed in the second contract. B.N.S fulfilled the first contract with two shipments. The first shipment fell short. B.N.S made up for the short shipment in their second shipment. Frigaliment accused B.N.S of shipping
Premium
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States