...Case Brief Norman Utley, Plaintiffs v. MCI, INC., MCI WorldCom Communications, INC., & MCI Network Services, INC. F/K.A MCI WorldCom Network Services, INC., Defendants. Civil action no. 3:05-CV-0046-K Facts: This is an age discrimination case arising out of MCI's decision to terminate twenty (collectively “Plaintiffs”) former MCI’s Employees. This resulted from a reduction in force ("RIF"), where the companies declining financial condition, compelled a reduction in costs of its operations between 2001 and 2004. On January 6, 2005, those former employees filed suit against MCI alleging that MCI termination was a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Of those twenty, nineteen made it to trial, where the court then granted MCI’s motion to separate the trials and divided Plaintiff’s into six groups based on the different organizations for which they worked. Three of MCI’s motions for summary judgment were denied, two discriminations claims, and one retaliation claim, for judgment evidence did not show a genuine issue of material fact. Issue: 1....
Words: 593 - Pages: 3
...Assignment Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Emil moved for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. BK also moved for summary judgment and pointed to evidence in the depositions that appellants knew the coffee was hot and that coffee was purchased and served as a hot beverage. It also contended under the circumstances that Evelyn's and Paul's actions were intervening, superseding causes precluding any actionable negligence on its part. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Christopher Nadel received second degree burns from coffee spilling on his right foot purchased at Burger King by his grandmother Evelyn Nadel. The Nadel’s brought suit against Burger King and franchise owner Emil, Inc, for product liability for a defectively designed product and for failure to warn of the dangers of handling a liquid served as hot as their coffee. The court granted both the Burger King owner and Burger King Corporation request for motion of summary of judgments. The Nadel’s appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on the products liability and related...
Words: 1465 - Pages: 6
...the above One of the types of pleadings that Defendants file in response to the plaintiff’s complaint is called the answer (which is also referred to as the response). True False Identify which, if any, of the below circumstances can occur as a result of an appeal: The appellate court can reverse the trial court The appellate court can affirm the trial court The appellate court can remand the case to the trial court Any of the above Does it ever occur in a lawsuit that the defendant stipulates to the plaintiff’s factual allegations? Yes No The quantum of evidence required for a verdict in a civil case is identical to the quantum of evidence required for a conviction in a criminal case. True False The jury hears the evidence presented at trial and decides the facts that are disputed in the lawsuit. The jury is instructed to follow the law given by the judge and then to attempt to reach a final verdict. True False If a judge incorrectly instructed the jury on the law, could this be the basis for a successful appeal of the verdict? Yes No A plaintiff is the party who initiates a lawsuit by filing a complaint. The plaintiff’s name appears at the top...
Words: 1809 - Pages: 8
...to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude liability for a possessor of land where an invitee is injured as a result of a condition whose danger is known or obvious to the invitee, unless the possessor anticipated the injury despite the invitee’s knowledge or the obviousness of the condition. Restatement (Second) of Torts §343A(1). As the cases below illustrate, where a danger is “open or obvious,” the possessor of land does not owe the invitee a duty to take precautions against or warn of open or obvious dangers. Under Pennsylvania law the assumption of the risk doctrine applies to absolve the landowner from liability for injuries sustained if the plaintiff: (1) knows of the risk or hazard, and (2) voluntarily proceeds in that activity. There is substantial uncertainty as to the status of the assumption of the risk doctrine in Pennsylvania. Which party bears the burden to establish these elements is currently the subject of debate in Pennsylvania courts....
Words: 4686 - Pages: 19
...IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: : CASE NO. 04-60600 : ROY JESSE LISATH, : CHAPTER 7 STEPHANIE MYLO LISATH, : : JUDGE HOFFMAN Debtors. : : SSN: (LAST FOUR DIGITS ONLY) 0486 : SSN: (LAST FOUR DIGITS ONLY) 9643 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RODELL RAHMAAN, : Adv. Pro. No. 05-02049 Plaintiff, : vs. : ROY J. LISATH, aka ROY JESSE LISATH,: Defendant. : PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Now comes the Plaintiff, Rodell Rahmaan (hereinafter “Rahmaan”), by and through his undersigned attorney, and respectfully MOVES this Honorable Court for the entry of JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT against the Defendant, Roy J. Lisath, aka Roy Jesse Lisath (hereinafter “Lisath”), for the relief demanded in the Complaint, specifically that any judgment later obtained by Rahmaan upon those claims which are the subject matter of that certain civil action entitled Rodell Rahmaan v. City of Columbus, et al., designated case number C2-02-989, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, be DECLARED to be excepted from discharge upon the grounds set forth in 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6), namely for willful and malicious injury. This Motion renews a Motion for Default Judgment previously served and filed on March 15, 2005, denied without prejudice by...
Words: 4159 - Pages: 17
...BRIEF CASE CITATION: Hotaling v. Hickenlooper, 275 P.3d 723 (Colo. App. 2011) PARTIES: Plaintiff/ Petitioner: Mark Hotaling Defendant/ Respondent: John Hickenlooper in his official capacity as governor of the State of Colorado; Christopher E. Urbina in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Services Corporation; and Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center, Inc. SUMMARY OF THE KEY FACTS: On June 23, 2011, the plaintiff brought action asserting that specific contracts for utilization of federal funds, went into between state Department of Public Health and Environment and elements giving family planning services, violated state constitution...
Words: 342 - Pages: 2
...Appeals Cases from 1913 Project ID: FOCUS - 1 of 1 DOCUMENT REBECCA KOOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, - vs - SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. CASE NO. CA2008-09-110 COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY 2009-Ohio-1734; 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1469 April 13, 2009, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Case No. 07CV69537. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant personal injury victim filed suit against appellee store alleging that it was negligent in its cleaning of a coffee spill, upon which she slipped and fell. The store filed a motion for summary judgment. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) granted summary judgment for the store. The victim appealed. OVERVIEW: The victim argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider the incident report and corresponding witness statements. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by disregarding the document due to its lack of authenticity. There was no indication that the document, purported to be an employee witness statement, was sworn or certified, nor was there any evidence presented to establish its authenticity by affidavit. Further, the incident report, and the alleged corresponding witness statements, did not meet the admissibility requirements of Civ. R. 56, and therefore, were not entitled to consideration by the trial court for summary judgment...
Words: 3758 - Pages: 16
...Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name on that document, and answer the questions. 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Plaintiff child was burned by spilled restaurant coffee. Plaintiffs, the child and his mother, grandmother, and father, filed an action in breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence against defendants, the restaurant franchisor and franchisee. The trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The spilled coffee was not so unforeseeable as to constitute an intervening cause. Summary judgment was proper for the breach of warranty claims because they were pre-empted by the Ohio Products Liability Law. Summary judgment was wrongly granted on the products liability and related punitive damage claims. Issues of fact remained as to whether the coffee was...
Words: 854 - Pages: 4
...Parties attending the Mediation Case a. The plaintiff, Carmen L. b. The defendant, Juanita Solis. c. Ms close Jones, a key witness d. Mr. Dennis Watson, a key witness 2. Brief Summary of Facts The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters. The plaintiff was drinking whiskey and cola as she talked to the defendant. She spilled whiskey and slipped when she got up. As a result of the fall, Carmen suffered a severe back injury. The plaintiff commenced this mediation case suing the restaurant of negligence. The siblings of the defendant have also raised alarming claims against the defendant. They claim that being given the job by their mom was a misdeed and that the defendant is ripping the family apart. The sources of these happenings are strongly attributed to the lat will left by the parents of the parties. The plaintiff expected to be named as the manager of the restaurant because she has worked in the business for around eight years. Following, the pass over, the plaintiff resolved to heavy drinking of alcohol the circumstance leading to the accident. 3. Claim and defense to counter the claim The plaintiffs claim lies on the basis that the restaurant was negligent. However, the defendant disputes these claims as the circumstances underlying the accident solely lie on the responsibility of defendant as confirmed by the summary of facts. With regard to the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant seeks justification of this case. The defendant has sufficient evidence...
Words: 659 - Pages: 3
...Case 3.2 – Service of Process Has Plaintiff properly served defendant Wal-Mart? No the plaintiff did not properly serve the defendant Wal-Mart. The plaintiff served the statue of limitation 9 days before the 3 years was up. He also served it to the manager that was physically available, but South Dakota has a law that the president, officer, director, or registered agent of a defendant corporation. The plaintiff as well did not properly give the service of process to the right person. Case 3.6 – Summary Judgment Should the court grant Pathmark’s motion for summary judgment? No I don’t think Pathmark established proper grounds for summary judgment. They are questioning the deposition of Toote, in the part where she stated she did not know how long the boxes were stacked there. How long the boxes being stacked is not the issue, it’s more an issue of negligence on Pathmark’s part because the boxes should not be laying around where people are walking. The court, due to not enough grounds of evidence, should not grant Pathmark requesting a summary judgment. Case 4.1 – Supremacy Clause Does the Massachusetts anti-Myanmar statue violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Under the Supremacy Clause, this anti-Myanmar act does violate the U.S., because it is going against the “supreme law of the land.” When Massachusetts set forward this, it went against the federal statute, making the state preempted by the federal statute. The states of the US don’t have to right...
Words: 337 - Pages: 2
...Blasco, } CASE NO. 06-40634-JJR-13 } Debtor. } CHAPTER: 13 } ______________________________________________________________________________ } Christina Blasco, } } Plaintiff, } ADV. P. NO.: 06-40087 } v. } } Money Services Center } d/b/a Cash Connection } } Defendant. } } MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The above case came before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on August 1, 2006, in response to the debtor-plaintiff’s complaint alleging the creditor-defendant violated the automatic stay [i.e. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)] by cashing the plaintiff’s check after she filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The defendant avers it did not violate the automatic stay because of the exception provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(11). The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. The Court heard oral arguments on September 12, 2006 and directed the parties to file additional briefs dealing with whether the check at issue qualified as a negotiable instrument. For the reasons stated below, the 1 Case 06-40087-JJR Doc 31 Filed 10/26/06 Entered 10/26/06 08:56:27 Document Page 1 of 10 Desc Main Court finds the motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED. Background On April 15, 2006, the plaintiff received a “payday loan” for $500.00 from the defendant. In exchange for the $500.00 loan, the plaintiff gave the...
Words: 3439 - Pages: 14
...May 19, 2015 Factual Summary of Rojo v. Kliger Rojo v. Kliger, 801 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1990) Plaintiffs Emma Rojo and Teresa Maloney were employed as assistants by defendants Erwin H. Kliger, a practicing physician, and Erwin H. Kliger, M.D., a medical corporation (hereafter referred to collectively as defendant). In August 1986, there was a complaint filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. The plaintiff accused the defense of violating FEHA and “intentional infliction of emotional distress”. The Plaintiffs alleged that during their employment the defendant subjected them to sexually harassing remarks and demands for sexual favors. These remarks resulted in the plaintiffs being forced to leave their employment. Defense moved for summary judgment due to the fact that, “FEHA constituted plaintiffs' exclusive remedy and that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the act.” Plaintiffs argued, “FEHA does not supplant other state law remedies, including common law claims, relating to discrimination in employment, and that pursuit of the administrative remedy is not a condition precedent to judicial relief.” The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. However, Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. They asserted that, “FEHA does not preempt or preclude other state law claims relating to employment discrimination.” IRAC for Rojo v. Kliger Issue Review in this case was granted to determine...
Words: 2000 - Pages: 8
...BUSI 301 COURTROOM OBSERVATION PAPER Indiana Northern District Court Case Number 82a04-8876-cv285 Plaintiff: Deborah White Plaintiff representatives: Walsh Jackson and Amanda Babott Defendant: Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern Defendant Representatives: Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter Defendant Council Overview: Jordan Van Meter and Benjamin Walton are representing the defendant who is Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The representing defense suggests that the Court give a summary judgment to John Daniels who was the bartender at O’Malley’s Tavern. The Plaintiff is seeking damages from the defendant, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s tavern stating that Mr. Gibbs had knowledge of Mr. Hard’s intoxication. The Indiana Law. Ind Code Ann 7.1-5-10-15.5 2006 does require that a defendant have actual knowledge in order to recover damages. Constructive knowledge does not satisfy the presumption, only subjective knowledge. Circumstantial evidences cannot support constructive knowledge, but only actual knowledge. According to the 7th circuit court of Indiana, visible acts of intoxication are subjective. The bartender himself only saw Mr. Hard sitting on a stool drinking whiskey which is not an uncommon occurrence in a bar. The case that was cited in the courtroom, the Ash Lock case (Ashlock v. Norris, 475 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 Ind. Ct. App. 1985) was not as severe as this case. This specific bartender at O’Malley’s Tavern did not have actual knowledge of...
Words: 1625 - Pages: 7
...RUBRIC FOR ASSIGNED CASE PRESENTATIONS AND PAPERS 1. Each student will be assigned a case from the end-of-chapter cases in the text book. You are required to submit a paper on the case and to engage in an in-class discussion with the professor about the case. 2. The cases in the textbook are what lawyers call squibs. The squibs are short summaries of the case and not the full court opinion about the case. You will be able to do an internet search under the name of the case and find the full court opinion, which will have much more information than the squib in the textbook. 3. Using the information in the full case opinion, you will be required to do the following a. (up to 25 points) Submit a paper of 500 to 750 words on the case. The paper must treat the following areas: - what are the facts of the case? - what is the law that applies in this situation? - what is the issue? That is a statement of how the law applies to the facts of the case - discussion - make an argument that supports a particular outcome in the case. NOTE – you do not have to agree with the court’s opinion. Feel free to come to a different conclusion that the court did, if you think the law and facts support you. - state your conclusion. b. (up to 25 points) Be prepared to engage in an in-class discussion with the professor about this case. You should be very familiar with the law and facts and should NOT be referring to the textbook, the case or your notes during this discussion. The discussion will...
Words: 2774 - Pages: 12
...PART I – 5 Cases where moving and storage companies were sued for some type of fraud against the Consumer and/or against other Businesses These group of cases represent consumers in lawsuits against moving companies and/or arbitration. Lawsuits against moving companies may include damages to property, breach of contract, tariff or regulatory violations, and hostage loads. * The Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit against Moving Max in July 2014, alleging they "engaged in a predatory bait and switch scheme," billed customers for "bogus charges," and then "threatened to drive off and retain the customers personal belongings unless and until payment was made by cash or money order." Under the terms of the Final Consent Judgment (entered February 13, 2015), that concluded a lawsuit filed in State Superior Court in Bergen County, the owner of Moving Max, Inc., a moving and storage company based in Fair Lawn, and the owner’s father, are permanently barred from owning or working in such businesses in New Jersey. In addition, as part of the settlement, 18 consumers who complained that their possessions were held until they paid substantially higher moving costs than agreed to, will be reimbursed for their losses. Case Cite: John J. Hoffman v. Moving Max, Inc., et al. Bergen County New Jersey Case No.: BER-C-203-14 http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases15/Moving-Max-Oziel.pdf * Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (plaintiff) and Safeguard Self Storage, Inc. (defendant)...
Words: 982 - Pages: 4
