THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS 12TH EDITION PDF

adminComment(0)

Full file at pawnfacumapbma.cf Meiners-Test-Bank Multiple Choice 1. The first thing a business with a civil. Roger E. Meiners/Al H. Ringleb/Frances L. Edwards. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS provides a practical introduction to the structure and function of the legal system from the perspective of the professional nonlawyer. This popular text effectively adapts a traditional case focus. Legal environment of business edition by meiners ringleb and edwards test bank Al H. Ringleb Business Edition Environment of.


The Legal Environment Of Business 12th Edition Pdf

Author:MATTIE WOODCOX
Language:English, Dutch, Portuguese
Country:Panama
Genre:Biography
Pages:387
Published (Last):02.10.2015
ISBN:332-3-66230-300-9
ePub File Size:21.34 MB
PDF File Size:10.85 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Downloads:39963
Uploaded by: KAMILAH

Title: The Legal Environment of Business. Author(s): Roger E. Meiners; Al. H. Ringleb; Frances L. Edwards. Edition: Year: ISBN . Download the legal environment of business 12th edition pawnfacumapbma.cf ( KB) now. Fast and easy at pawnfacumapbma.cf This is the book The Legal Environment and Business Law (v. ). This book is licensed . Chapter 2: Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics.

Baltimore Radio Show, the Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of certiorari, explaining: This is especially true of petitions for review on writ of certiorari to a State court. Narrowly technical reasons may lead to denials. Review may be sought too late; the judgment of the lower court may not be final; it may not be the judgment of a State court of last resort; the decision may be supportable as a matter of State law, not subject to review by this Court, even though the State court also passed on issues of federal law.

A decision may satisfy all these technical requirements and yet may commend itself for review to fewer than four members of the Court. Pertinent considerations of judicial policy here come into play. A case may raise an important question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts.

Wise adjudication has its own time for ripening. It becomes necessary to say that denial of this petition carries no support whatever for concluding that either the majority or the dissent in the court below correctly interpreted the scope of our decisions.

It does not carry any implication that either, or neither, opinion below correctly applied those decisions to the facts in the case at bar. It has authority to reject the appeal, in which case the proceedings are finished.

After reconsideration, if the decision is appealed to the supreme court, a panel of 25 judges hears the case. State Courts of Original Jurisdiction—The courts of original jurisdiction include courts of general and limited or special jurisdiction. Trial courts have different names in different states district court, superior court, supreme court, etc. State Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction—All states have at least one court of appellate jurisdiction but many have two levels of appellate courts.

A party normally has a right of appeal to at least one appellate court. A party seeking review from the highest state court may seek review from the U. Supreme Court, but it is rarely granted. Chapter 2 The Court Systems Add. Appeals—If an appeal to the U. Supreme Court involves only a matter a state law the state courts are supreme and no appeal is permitted.

The Supreme Court grants review at its discretion. In Michigan v. Long the Court explained: A state- law ground may be adequate, but if it is not clear that it is independent of federal-law grounds, the Supreme Court may accept jurisdiction. Small Claims—Businesses have lobbied state legislatures to expand the jurisdiction of small claims courts.

Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment 12th Edition – PDF Version

Low limits leaves companies in a difficult position. Many claims are too large for small claims but too small to justify the expense and delays associated with the regular courts. The Wall Street Journal reports: Acuna v. Gunderson Chev. Gunderson appealed according to the California Small Claims Act and a trial de novo was set in superior court.

Acuna then filed a counter-claim against Gunderson for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment.

Description

Acuna requested that superior court transfer the small claims action and consolidate it with the new action filed and that the small claims order be dismissed without prejudice because the appeal by Gunderson vacated the small claims decision.

The request was denied for lack of jurisdiction; Acuna appealed. The Small Claims Act provides a forum in which minor civil disputes can be resolved quickly and inexpensively. A plaintiff who files an action in small claims court has no right to appeal. If the defendant appeals, with the exception that attorneys may participate, the hearing is to be conducted in the same way as the original hearing.

Thus, the court noted that if the request had been granted, several of the statutory limitations would have been violated including the prohibitions against pretrial discovery, jury trial, and a plaintiff's appeal. Additionally, allowing such transfer and consolidation would create a risk of impermissible forum shopping by a plaintiff dissatisfied with the result obtained in the small claims court.

Most courts have adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to govern procedural aspects—pleadings, discovery, and trial procedure. The plaintiff must select a court with 1 subject matter jurisdiction and 2 jurisdiction over the person or property of the defendant. Terrebonne Homecare v. THI asserted this was a violation of Louisiana antitrust and unfair competition laws. TGMC removed the case to federal court. The federal district court refused to remand the case to state court on the grounds that the state antitrust claims were actually federal in nature because they involved interstate commerce.

The court held that THI had artfully pleaded its complaint to avoid a necessary federal question, so the federal court had jurisdiction. THI appealed. Vacated and remanded. The artful pleading doctrine does not apply, however, unless federal law completely preempts the field. The federal court lacks jurisdiction over the matter since the matter involved intrastate commerce subject to state law. Class Action Suits and Diversity. In a class action suit brought on behalf of a large group for example, all college football fans in the United States , only the citizenship of the representative of the class is used to determine the existence of diversity.

Personal Jurisdiction—After the plaintiff has selected the appropriate court on the basis of subject matter, she must determine if that court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. In personam jurisdiction is generally established through service of process summons , notifying the defendant, usually in person, of the suit that has been filed.

If there is no response, there is a default judgment. Alston v. Advanced Brands and Importing Co. They sought to recover money spent on alcoholic beverages by children and sought an injunction against further advertising. The trial courts dismissed the suits; the plaintiffs appealed. The appeals were consolidated into one action for consideration. The parents of the children have no viable remedy against the beverage makers. Hence, they failed to establish standing. Illegal sales of alcoholic beverages to children may create a cause of action against the retailer, but not against the manufacturers or importers.

The parents here suffered no economic injury, which also eliminates standing. Brown v. Thaler Sup. Maine law states that service may be made: If no acknowledgment of service … is received by the sender within 20 days after the date of mailing, service of the summons and complaint shall be made [by personal service].

Brown requested default judgment from the court, claiming that Thaler did not respond to service. Brown was granted judgment, but it was vacated when Thaler protested that he had not been served. Brown appealed. Service by mail without an acknowledgment is not proper service. It means that the other party has not been provided adequate notice and means the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The trial court ruling to dismiss the suit was appropriate. Gilbreath v. Brewster Sup. Thirteen months after the case was filed Gilbreath was served. Gilbreath moved to have the case dismissed because it violated Rule 3. Gilbreath appealed, contending that dismissal should have been with prejudice. Reversed for Gilbreath. This practice clearly would be an abuse of the system A dismissal without prejudice Most cases are finished in less than a year from filing; loser pays.

Respected for accuracy, many foreign parties are willing to submit cases there. Jurisdiction over Out-of-State Defendants—Defendant must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court to be served.

Out-of-state defendants can be served if they are served in the state or if they can be reached by a long-arm-statute. Focus on the state in which the firm is incorporated, the state in which the firm has its headquarters or main plant; and the state in which the firm does business.

Elements of Law and the Judicial Process Add. Clearwater Artesian Well v. LaGrandeur Sup.

LaGrandeur contended the suit should be set aside because Clearwater, a foreign corporation, was not licensed to do business in Maine. Clearwater responded that it needed no particular authority to transact business in Maine. The district court held that suit could proceed. LaGrandeur appealed. Thus, a foreign corporation may transact business in interstate commerce without authorization from the State of Maine and so may maintain legal proceedings in the state.

California Statutes.: Consent may be expressed by words or by conduct and may given for a particular action before or after it is brought. Examples are: The consent of a party is effective to give a state jurisdiction over his person; it cannot enlarge the competency of the court to include another case which a court has not been authorized to hear or a case involving either a greater or lesser amount in controversy.

If a person brings a lawsuit before a court—is a plaintiff—the court has jurisdiction over the person for other matters. Thus, a person must contest jurisdiction before taking any other action that might be interpreted as an appearance. The Long Arm of the Internet—Jurisdiction over firms that do business on the Internet have the same principles as traditional business.

Mere Internet advertisement is not enough; there must be actual doing business in another state for there to be jurisdiction in that state. State of incorporation; 2. State in which headquarters are located; and, 3. Corporation is doing business in the state. Can Your Firm Be Reached? Because the Florida firm directly solicited clients in New York, it fell under New York long-arm jurisdiction.

To make it even stronger, New York, as other states, regulates real estate agents. Chapter 2 The Court Systems One must have a New York realtor license to be in the business of soliciting real estate clients. The Florida business did not have a license to solicit customers in New York, which created another ground for long-arm jurisdiction by New York courts. Blimka v.

My Web Wholesalers S. When 16, of the 26, pair ordered arrived, Blimka complained about the quality. My Web said tough. Blimka sued in Idaho state court and won a default judgment. My Web appealed that Idaho courts did not have jurisdiction.

My Web intended to do business in Idaho. The Idaho high court held that Idaho courts did have jurisdiction over an out-of- state seller who misrepresented goods sold over the internet.

Does this mean most internet-based sellers are subject to jurisdiction in every state where they do business? Yes, if they do active business. The standard is the same as it is for traditional businesses. Why did My Web not move the case from Idaho state court to federal court? Even allowing for lost profits Blimka may have earned by resale, it would be unlikely to be enough for diversity jurisdiction.

In any case, My Web failed to show up to defend itself and lost. So later when it lost on the claim of lack of jurisdiction, it could not ask for another day in court. World-Wide Volkswagen v.

Woodson S. World-Wide contested the right of the court Judge Woodson to exert jurisdiction over it, as it did no business in Oklahoma. The OK courts asserted jurisdiction existed; World-Wide appealed.

World-Wide had no contacts in Oklahoma as its business was limited to selling cars in the east. Minimum contacts were not established in OK just by the fact that one of the cars the company sold ended up in OK.

For there to be minimum contacts to make a business subject to the laws and jurisdiction of a state, there must be intent to do business in the state. Even if a firm is unsuccessful, if they attempt to solicit business or accept business in a state, they will be subject to its laws. Without a minimum contacts standard, businesses would be subject to jurisdiction anywhere their products were carried.

It would be very expensive for firms to defend themselves in actions in far away jurisdictions where they had no intent to do business or to benefit from the laws. A firm must have made an effort to do business in a state to become subject to the jurisdiction of its courts.

Audi intended to distribute cars in the U. Digi-Tel Holdings v. Proteq Telecommunications 8th Cir. The contract said that Minnesota law would govern and called for the phones to be delivered to Digi-Tel in Singapore F. The phones were not ready on time and Digi-Tel sued Proteq in federal court in Minn. The district court dismissed the case, holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Proteq.

Digi-Tel appealed. Proteq had no business in Minnesota. Its representatives never entered the state; all business was done in Singapore and the goods were delivered there. The long-arm statute tests were not met. Letters, faxes, and shipment of samples from Singapore to MN were not enough to establish jurisdiction.

The choice of MN law was also not sufficient, although it is a factor. It must sue in Singapore. Jurisdiction over corporations—In addition to the ways listed in the text, according to the California Statutes Annotated: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a corporation on one or more of the following bases: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who has done business in the state, but has ceased to do business there at the time when the action is commenced, with respect to causes of action arising out of that business.

A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who does business in the state with respect to causes of action that do not arise from the business done in the state if this business is so continuous and substantial as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction reasonable. Doing business is doing a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary profit, or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act for such purpose with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts.

It is immaterial whether a state has power to prevent a nonresident from doing business within its territory, or to regulate such business, or whether the business involves interstate commerce.

The question in each case is whether an individual has a sufficient relationship to the state arising out of such business that makes it reasonable for the state to exercise judicial jurisdiction over the individual as to the particular cause of action. Hollinger v. Sifers Ct.

Ace the Test!

Sifers practiced in Kansas City, Kansas. Hollinger lived in Missouri. She visited Sifers in his office and he performed surgery on her. After problems arose, she sued Sifers Chapter 2 The Court Systems in state court in Missouri. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Sifers. Hollinger appealed. Sifers offers his services only in Kansas. He did not advertise for patients from Missouri; he was simply seen on TV discussing medicine by a Missouri resident who went to Kansas to see him.

So the long-arm statute does not apply to Sifers and Missouri courts have no jurisdiction. Trustees of Columbia University v. Ocean World, S. It contracted with Briggs to download 12 dolphins from Japan for delivery in the DR. The DR denied a permit to import the dolphins. OW sued various defendants for intentional interference with a contract or business relationship. Among the defendants was Columbia University of NY. Columbia also owns property in FL. OW contends that Columbia encouraged the DR to refuse to allow the dolphins to be imported, which was interference with a business relationship.

Reiss and Columbia moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in FL courts. The trial court refused that motion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction only: Although it has nationwide jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primarily hears appeals from the district courts involving: Supreme Court: Constitution b.

Supreme Court was created by: The highest court in the United States is the: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit c. Court of Presidential Appeals d. Court of Appeals for the D. Circuit b. Court of International Justice e. Supreme Court is primarily: Supreme Court may review appeals from: Congress may change the U.

Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot: If the U. Supreme Court accepts a case on appeal it: In some rare instances, the U. Supreme Court has: An example of an instance in which the U. Supreme Court would have original and exclusive jurisdiction is: The Supreme Court: To obtain appellate review from the U. Supreme Court a party must: For the Supreme Court to agree to review a case: If three Supreme Court justices agree to review a case: In contrast to most state high courts, the U.

Like most European countries, France is: Since France is a civil-law country, its legal system is based on: The French court system: In the French court system, the top court, cour de cessation: Every state court system has trial courts where disputes are initially brought and tried. These are the courts of: State courts such as municipal courts or probate courts are called courts of: State courts of general jurisdiction: State courts of limited or special jurisdiction include: A court of limited or special jurisdiction would most likely be: Municipal courts usually: Litigants not satisfied with the decision of a court of limited jurisdiction may: When litigants not satisfied with the decision of a court of limited jurisdiction appeal to a court of general jurisdiction they will get: Many states provide small claims courts.

These courts: Small claims courts: Small claims courts are good for collecting small debts because: State court systems: Constitution to have appeals courts e. If a party wishes to appeal from a lower court decision in a state court, which of the following is true about the right of appeal: When a court system has two levels of appellate courts, appeal is usually a matter of right at the first level and at the second level.

The most common issue s reaching the highest state courts involve s: A party seeking further review from the highest state court may attempt to seek review from: The legal process that resolves disputes among persons, businesses, and governments is known as: The party claiming to have suffered an injury that the law can remedy is: The party who files a law suit is the: The party who is sued in a law suit is the: The party who hears a law suit is the: Many aspects of the civil litigation process between two parties in the federal court system, including pleadings, discovery, trial procedures, and motions, are governed by: Court Rules of Civil Process b.

Although states are free to develop their own procedural rules, many have adopted: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were developed by an advisory committee appointed by: Congress c. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern: With respect to a court, jurisdiction means: A court's jurisdiction defines: Limitations on the kinds of disputes a court may resolve come from: When filing a lawsuit, the party bringing the suit must select a court that has both: The party bringing a lawsuit must choose a court with: If a court rules in a particular case in which it is later found not to have jurisdiction: Statutes passed by Congress may limit which types of jurisdiction?

Subject-matter jurisdiction is: Requirements on the amount in controversy or restrictions on the legal area a court can hear fall under the category of: Federal courts have the judicial power to hear cases involving: Federal courts do not have the judicial power to hear a case involving: Federal courts have the judicial power to hear many cases involving: Federal courts have the judicial power to hear most cases involving: Some litigation in federal court is there because of the parties involved.

In such cases it is most likely that: Cases that go to federal court that involve disputes between citizens of different states are commonly referred to as: Cases that go to federal court that involve disputes between citizens of different states are commonly referred to as diversity of: Diversity of citizenship cases are: The purpose of allowing federal jurisdiction when a dispute arises between citizens of different states is: Litigation in federal court often involves parties from different states.

In addition, at least how much in dollar terms must be in controversy for a case to be heard in a federal court? A federal district court generally has the authority to accept a case for adjudication: In international contracts, parties can specify how future disputes will be resolved, including: The Commercial Court in London: Besides having subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, the court must also have: Besides having personal jurisdiction over a case, the court must also have: Territorial jurisdiction can become an issue if: A court's power over the person of the defendant is referred to as: When a court has power over the person who is the defendant of a lawsuit, it is called: A person files a lawsuit.

To get the defendant before the court in which suit has been filed, the court must have power over the person of the defendant. A person is notified that a lawsuit has been filed against them by a: Service of process summons is traditionally achieved by: In practice, service of process summons is usually achieved by: If a defendant fails to appear in court after being issued a summons: Service of process is usually achieved by: A summons can be delivered to the defendant by: If a defendant cannot be located for a summons to be delivered: Jane wants to sue Bob in a Virginia state court.

Bob is a resident of Texas. Which of the following method may Jane use to get jurisdiction over the person of Bob? Jane could have Bob served with a summons while he is driving through the state on his way to Maryland d. Jane can have Bob served with a summons in Texas; he must appear in Virginia court e. If a nonresident defendant is passing though the state where the plaintiff wishes to bring the lawsuit: A long-arm statute is a: The district court dismissed the case, holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Proteq.

Digi-Tel appealed. Proteq had no business in Minnesota. Its representatives never entered the state; all business was done in Singapore and the goods were delivered there. The long-arm statute tests were not met.

Letters, faxes, and shipment of samples from Singapore to MN were not enough to establish jurisdiction. The choice of MN law was also not sufficient, although it is a factor.

It must sue in Singapore. Jurisdiction over corporations—In addition to the ways listed in the text, according to the California Statutes Annotated: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a corporation on one or more of the following bases: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who has done business in the state, but has ceased to do business there at the time when the action is commenced, with respect to causes of action arising out of that business.

A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who does business in the state with respect to causes of action that do not arise from the business done in the state if this business is so continuous and substantial as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction reasonable. Doing business is doing a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary profit, or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act for such purpose with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts.

It is immaterial whether a state has power to prevent a nonresident from doing business within its territory, or to regulate such business, or whether the business involves interstate commerce. The question in each case is whether an individual has a sufficient relationship to the state arising out of such business that makes it reasonable for the state to exercise judicial jurisdiction over the individual as to the particular cause of action. Hollinger v. Sifers Ct. Sifers practiced in Kansas City, Kansas.

Hollinger lived in Missouri. She visited Sifers in his office and he performed surgery on her. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Sifers. Hollinger appealed. Sifers offers his services only in Kansas. He did not advertise for patients from Missouri; he was simply seen on TV discussing medicine by a Missouri resident who went to Kansas to see him. So the long-arm statute does not apply to Sifers and Missouri courts have no jurisdiction.

Trustees of Columbia University v. Ocean World, S. It contracted with Briggs to download 12 dolphins from Japan for delivery in the DR. The DR denied a permit to import the dolphins. OW sued various defendants for intentional interference with a contract or business relationship.

Among the defendants was Columbia University of NY. Columbia also owns property in FL. OW contends that Columbia encouraged the DR to refuse to allow the dolphins to be imported, which was interference with a business relationship.

Reiss and Columbia moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in FL courts. The trial court refused that motion. They appealed. Florida courts do not have jurisdiction over the defendants.

None of the alleged tortious acts occurred in FL, as would be required for personal jurisdiction. The facts that Columbia has alumni associations in FL and offers internet lectures and owns property in the state do not amount to continuous and systematic general business contacts with FL to warrant exercise of personal jurisdiction.

The existence of a website that may be visible in every location does not make the owner of the website subject to jurisdiction in every location. It will not matter if the defendant is present. International Service—The Hague Convention sets out specific procedures for service of process.

For example: Article Through Diplomatic channels Article By any means acceptable in the country where service is to be made. In Bankston v. Toyota Motor, the 8th Circuit held that service by registered mail from the U.

Service had to be made through the Japanese central authority in Japanese. Exclusive Jurisdiction—Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving federal crimes, bankruptcy, patents, and copyrights.

State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes as divorce and other matters under state law.

The court hearing the case—whether federal or state—applies its procedural rules and follow its substantive law. Concurrent Jurisdiction—When both federal and state systems have the power to hear a case, concurrent jurisdiction exists. As Exhibit 2. In explicit cases, Congress provides by statute that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Elliott v.

Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment 12th Edition – PDF Version

Tilton 5th Cir. Elliott, who had contemplated suicide, saw Tilton on TV in Florida and thought that he was speaking to her. She called, pledged money, and made a video testimony about how Tilton helped her. Later she asked that the testimony not be shown, but it was. She sued Tilton in federal district court for fraud, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.

Denalli 11th Cir. Denalli appealed his conviction under Count 21, a federal arson statute. Under the standard from the Lopez case S.

It failed to make this showing. The court requires the plaintiff to show that a defendant is a real and substantial party to the lawsuit.

Thornton v. Holloway 8th Cir. Holloway removed the case to federal district court. That court remanded the case to the state court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction only state-law claims were involved. Holloway appealed to the federal court of appeal that the case should be in federal district court a petition for write of mandamus.

A federal court may refrain from exercising removal jurisdiction under the Abstention Doctrine. The court may assert that an issue in the case revolves around a question of state law that is uncertain. The court will generally assert that the state court should resolve that question and then it either remand the entire case to the state court, or retain jurisdiction but wait until the state court has decided just that particular question.

Applying the Appropriate Law in Federal Court—Under the Erie Doctrine, federal courts in diversity cases are required to apply the appropriate state's statutory and common law. The federal court may follow its own procedural law. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins S. Tompkins sued in New York federal district court.

Under the old ruling in Swift v. Under Pennsylvania common law, Erie would not be liable since Tompkins was a trespasser. The federal district and appellate courts found for Tompkins. Erie appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reversed and Swift is overturned.

Also read: THE QUEST EBOOK

Federal courts in diversity cases are required to apply the appropriate state's statutory and common law. Since the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, Tompkins was a Pa. Why had the decision in Swift v. Tyson prevented uniformity in the administration of the law of the state? Elements of Law and the Judicial Process The rule meant that federal courts could develop their own common law standards that could be different from the common law in a state.

This could mean that identical cases, one tried in a state court, the other tried in a federal court in the same state, could have different rules of law applied. The S. Under Erie, if a court has jurisdiction over the parties in a dispute, then the procedural and substantive law of that state will apply. Should the case be in federal court, then federal procedural rules would be followed, but state substantive law would apply.

Applying the Appropriate Law in State Court—When a dispute is brought in a state court involving incidents that have taken place in more than one state, a conflict-of-law may rise. Traditional conflict-of-law rules are gradually being replaced by significant interest tests. The court examines the various state interests in need of consideration and then determines which state has the more significant interest. Williamson Pounders Architects v.

Tuncia Co. Later, Tuncia personnel approved an expansion of the project but then refused to pay WPA because the County Board had not approved the expansion. WPA sued in federal court in Mississippi for breach of contract. District court dismissed suit. WPA appealed. Generally a choice of law provision is upheld. However, state public policy cannot be avoided by such. Under MS law, a county Board must approve any changes to a contract. Hence, the oral permission by administrators to alter the contract was not enforceable, so the case should be dismissed.

Miller v. The court held that Texas law governed and it prohibited such repayment. Arkansas uses a five factor test: This case turns on the fourth factor. Hence, Texas law is more relevant given the nature of the claim than is Arkansas law. Hughes v. Wal-Mart 8th Cir. The district court held that LA law governed and that there could be no recovery.

Hughes appealed. The 8th Circuit applied Arkansas law to determine which law would apply. Maintenance of interstate order, one factor, points to Louisiana because Wal-Mart sold the product there to a Louisiana resident, which is where the injury occurred.

The state of Arkansas has little interest in the matter. Jacobson v. Mailboxes Sup. The business failed. Jacobson sued, claiming that MB used deceit to induce her to sign the franchise agreement and that it violated the franchise agreement. MB moved for summary judgment--the franchise agreement contained a forum selection clause: The forum selection clause was to be upheld.

However, the claim that deceit was used to induce plaintiff to sign the contract is an event that occurred before the contract was signed and may be tried in Massachusetts court under Massachusetts law: Mylle v. American Cyanamid 4th Cir. His widow sued in federal court in PA, claiming wrongful death. Finding that venue was improper, the court transferred case to federal court in SC. Her suit was dismissed for failure to comply with registration requirements SC imposes on out-of-state executors.

She appealed. The proper law to be applied, whether the case had been heard in federal court in Pennsylvania or in SC, is SC law.

The federal court in SC properly applied SC law in dismissing the suit. Barnes v. IBM Ct. IBM moved to have the case moved to Oakland Co. The court in Wayne Co. Elements of Law and the Judicial Process Decision: Barnes lives in Wayne County and claims he suffered from the effects of racial discrimination while he was at home.

Change of Venue—Defendants may request a change of venue from where the case is filed because of witnesses or, in some cases, due to extreme publicity that will reduce the ability to get a fair trial.

BancorpSouth Bank v. Hazelwood Logistics Center 8th Cir. It got a loan from BancorpSouth of Mississippi and more money from four Missouri banks. Owners of HLC guaranteed the loan. Development stalled, HLC sued owners on the loan in fed. HLC claimed venue was improper, but court held it had jurisdiction. HLC appealed. This is a diversity case in which the law of Missouri applies as the loan contract was written under that law. Further, there is diversity of citizenship that allows the federal court in Missouri to have jurisdiction.

Even more, there was a forum selection clause that allowed the bank to choose among listed jurisdictions. As that clause was freely agreed to, it will be enforced. What law will the federal district court use to resolve the matter? Missouri law—as the court notes, the parties agreed to that, so the federal court will use it to resolve the dispute which was already held to be summary judgment for the banks.

Could HLC have avoided being in federal court? Yes, the banks could agree to submit to Missouri state court jurisdiction in the loan agreements, but, as the appeals court notes, the venue was permissive, so the banks chose to file in federal court in Missouri.

His truck was in an accident in Dearborn Co. The accident injured A. Suit was filed on behalf of A. They moved to have the case transferred to either Hendricks or Dearborn Co. The trial court refused to change venue; defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed. Defendants appealed that ruling.

Venue is the proper or possible place for a lawsuit to proceed. In general, any lawsuit may proceed in any county, but certain counties are granted preferred venue status. That is the case here. Actions for the recovery of real property, or for the determination in any form of such rights or interest, and for injuries to real property, must be commenced in the county in which the subject of the action, or some part of it, is situated.

In cases involving motor vehicle accidents, the preferred venue is where the accident occurred. Porter Co.Roberts, F. A competitor company in Illinois sues the Georgia firm in Illinois court, claiming that the service being offered is a sham that injures the Illinois firm.

The facts that Columbia has alumni associations in FL and offers internet lectures and owns property in the state do not amount to continuous and systematic general business contacts with FL to warrant exercise of personal jurisdiction. The majority of litigation occurs in the: She did sue the bank for that. Can Your Firm Be Reached?

Supreme Court has: Concurrent Jurisdiction—When both federal and state systems have the power to hear a case, concurrent jurisdiction exists.

ZONA from Cambridge
I love studying docunments limply. See my other posts. I absolutely love high jump.
>