100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers 2024 $12.49   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers 2024

 5 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • LEB 320F
  • Institution
  • LEB 320F

Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers

Preview 2 out of 8  pages

  • August 2, 2024
  • 8
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
  • LEB 320F
  • LEB 320F
avatar-seller
millyphilip
Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers
1.1 Soldano v. O'Daniels - Answer -Liability when someone requests aid.
Context: A fight broke out, someone tried to contact police and was refused a phone. Someone was killed in the fight. (O'Daniels is the bartender)
Conflict: Defendant did not allow emergency use of a phone. Was he negligently interfering?
1.2 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles - Answer -The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ["district courts shall have original jurisdiction" over a civil "class action" if, among other things, the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000."]
Context: SF Insurance didnt include contractor fees, which screwed a lot of people over.
Conflict: Knowles spoke for the rest of the people in the CA lawsuit without right. Had no
right to stipulate that it would not exceed 5M.
2.1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Answer -Concept: Motion to Dismiss
Context: Iqbal, a Muslim, was detained following 9/11 and sued on the basis of discrimination by gov. officials. Conflict: Did Iqbal have the right facts to dismiss the trial on basis of discrimination.
Riley v. Willis - Answer -Concept: An appeal on a judge's "Instructions to the Jury"
Context: Willis was walking her dog and Riley ran it over. Question was Riley's liability.
Conflict: The judge should have informed the jury of a local law that would have had a substantial effect on their decision.
SEC v. Ginsburg - Answer -Concept: Appellate courts uphold lower court facts, but not always interpretations of law.
Context: Ginsburg was being shady and probably insider trading. Conflict: The judge called a judgement notwithstanding the verdict, higher court said no go.
Oxford Health Care Plans LLC v. Sutter - Answer -Concept: Arbitrators decisions are pretty much final, even if they are completely wrong.
Context: Oxford brought a class lawsuit by physician Sutter to arbitration to decide if class arbitration for the real problem is what should be done. Arbiter said yes, contract stipulates that you must use an arbitrator and class arbitration is the way to go (vs. regular arbitration vs just Sutter).
Conflict: Oxford did not like the result, and tried to bring it to court on the basis that the arbitrator "exceeded his authority" (he did not)
Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital - Answer -Concept: Laws change with modern society.
Context: Textbook case of negligence, however the Hospital defended itself with its status as a nonprofit.
Conflict: Court ruled in favor of hospital, was appealed on the basis that the ''non-profit immunity' was not correct. The court upheld this idea.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill - Answer -Concept: Whether or not a statute can effect construction that had begun before the statute was enacted.
Context: TVA is building dam, people dont like it, find an endangered species, and try to
get construction halted by the statute.
Appellate court found that they had to stop.
Gonzales v. Raich - Answer -Concept: Interstate Commerce Clause includes crops grown for personal consumption.
Context: Gonzales (Attorney General) and Raich (weed cultivator). Raich argued that the DEA could not enforce against her cultivation.
Granholm v. Heald - Answer -Concept: Interstate Commerce Clause and the Internet.
Context: The wineries were allowed to sell directly to consumers in New York and Michigan.
Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. - Answer -Concept: Free speech is precious. "creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. " Intredasting

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller millyphilip. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $12.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

78600 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$12.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart