The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case was a product liability lawsuit filed by Stella Liebeck‚ a 79 year old woman who was burned by a scalding hot coffee. One Sunday afternoon in 1994‚ Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s drive through in Albuquerque‚ New Mexico. As she sat alongside her grandson in a 1989 Ford Probe‚ Liebeck noticed that there were no cup holders on the passenger side. Acting quickly‚ Liebeck decided to put the coffee cup between her knees. When she removed the coffee
Premium Nutrition Obesity Blood
RENO v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION US Supreme Court‚ 1997 1. Claim: Attorney General Janet Reno‚ the appellant appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act’s special review provisions against the appellee‚ ACLU. 2. Facts: The 1996 Federal Communications Decency Act sought to protect minors from “indecent” and offensive Internet materials. The Act made it a crime to transmit obscene or indecent messages over the Internet. Immediately after the CDA became law‚ twenty
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Finally‚ on July 27‚ 2000‚ Marie Villette (plaintiff) had a carport installed from Sheldorado Aluminum Product (defendant). The covering would collapse six months later on top of the plaintiffs Mercedes Benz. All the plaintiff is requesting is the $3‚000 she has spent on the carport. Ms. Villette filed a lawsuit opposing Sheldorado expecting the return of her $3000. Ms. Villette and Sheldorado‚ had no formal written contract‚ however‚ there was a bill of sale; it is dated 11 July‚ 2000. Ms. Villette
Premium Contract Law Contract law
LAW 150 Mims v. Starbucks Corp. Fact: * Kevin Keevican‚ Kathleen Mims‚ and other former managers filed a suit against Starbucks seeking unpaid overtime and other amounts. * In Starbucks Corp. Stores the manager’s responsibilities include supervising and motivating six to thirty employees including supervisors and assistant managers‚ overseeing customer service and processes employee records‚ payrolls‚ and inventory counts. * He or she also develops strategies to increase revenues
Premium Management Employment
Case Study: Kim v. Son To summarize the case of Kim v. Son‚ Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations‚ which eventually failed‚ and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad‚ he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood‚ stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out‚ when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim‚ so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge
Premium Common law Contract Law
interviewing Stephen‚ a top attorney in an in house counsel position at a company that is known throughout the world. Stephen obtained his law degree from the University of Texas and has more than fifteen years of experience as an attorney in various legal positions. The legal office at the company consists of more than two hundred attorneys worldwide. Stephen works as either a litigator for the company or as supervising counsel for the company when it hires outside firms on its behalf. Stephen is often
Premium Law Lawyer United States
THE HIGH COURT’S DECISIONS a. Duty of care In Harriton’s case‚ she was Mrs Harriton’s decision alone as to whether or not to undergo an abortion‚ and elsewhere the law recognizes that where this is a lawful possibility this is a decision she may make in her own best interests and not necessarily those of the foetus. Then a recognized legal right of the mother may conflict with any posited ‘right’ of the unborn child‚ with the further complication that‚ should the mother decide to continue the pregnancy
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Abortion Law
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
COURT CASES: Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge In this case of Goldberg v. Kelly we have an issue that discusses the termination of welfare to a recipient. Now what seems to be the issue here is that there used to be no federal or state law on how to regulate this and enforce this but only a procedure that the New York State ’s general Home Relief program adopted to use and follow. The sole issue of the problem is accepting the fact that a person with life depending needs could lose their
Premium Trial Hearing Appeal
R v. Latimer The case with Robert Latimer all began with his twelve year old daughter having cerebral palsy and being quadriplegic. Tracy would suffer from many seizures a day and was also believed to have a brain capacity of a four-month old which caused her to be dependent. Tracy underwent many surgeries to try to give her an “easier” life but nothing seemed to chance any changes. No changes for the better or for the worse. So it wasn’t like she was near death. November 19th 1993‚ she was supposed
Premium United States Jury Supreme Court of the United States