Legal 2700 Hackleman Test 2 court cases
Terms in this set (19)
Cook v. Sullivan
Sullivans transformed their property to support a new house, but this had effect on of unreasonabilitzy and substantially harmed the Cook's property.
Water flooded the Cook's property did not flow from the Sullivan's property - if it had it would have been trespassing
Hardship: they must move because they did not present another option
Leyden vs. American Healthcare Commission
Harper v. Winston County
Can still claim battery if touched in an offensive or hostile way
No legal exception for offensive touching to gain control of an employee (unlike shoplifter)
Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
no expectation of privacy on unprotected websites
NY Times v. Sullivan
This 1964 case established strict standards for proving slander and libel, court must prove intent of malice on the part of the publisher.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
Public figures must prove actual malice
Iannelli v. Burger King
Restaurant has duty of reasonable care to those who are eating in restaurant
When warning signs indicate that individuals may not be safe, manager has a duty to take action to try to prevent injury
Duty to protect diners from assault might exist if restaurant employees become aware of danger and do not take basic measures to prevent
Palsfrag v. Island Railroad Company
Facts: Palsfrag was waiting for a train at a station when she was injured because a man who rushing to get on a train was shoved on it in an effort to help him. The man was carrying explosives that fell and went off causing debris to fall on Palsfrag. She sued for damages on the basis of negligent conduct by the railroad guards and won. The Railroad appealed.
Issue: A victim must show that the negligent party must show that the most cautious mind could have thought that the parcel wrapped in paper could have contained explosives.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of the railroad because a reasonable person could not had foreseen the results of the actions
Branham v. Ford Motor Co.
court determined in SC the risk utility test now standard of all product design defects cases because it focuses on design of product rather than customer of the product.
Riley v. California
Cannot search cell phones without warrants
thought there was a violation of clean air act. Asked for warrant and they shut the door in their face. The EPA then hired a pilot and did a testing of the air or something and basically the supreme court said that this was not an invasion of privacy.
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust Et Al.
♣ e Coastal's acts protected by the "rule of capture"?
♣ Rule of capture is whoever captures it first gets it first come first serve.
♣ Supreme court of Texas said that the rule of capture is valid here.
Duke Energy Carolinas v. Gray
Is an easement entitled to the same legal respect as other forms of real property including adverse possession? YES
Cook vs Sullivan
Sullivans transformed their property to support a new house, but this had the effect of unreasonably and substantially harming Cook's property. They did not internalize the costs of their behavior.
the water that flooded Cook's property did not necessarily flow from S's property, if it had it would been a trespass not a nuisance
if S had provided the court w another option other than moving their house, the balance of the hand ups might have come out differently.
Gottleb & Co ., Inc. Vs. Alps South Corporation
♣ Compensatory and consequential damages for their limbs chaffing people from gottleb and alps said omg our rep and people are sending their stuff back and gottleb said they will pay compensatory but not consequential because it said in the contract on the back of the purchase that they wouldn't pay consequential; alps big defense was we didn't read that or see that part and the supreme court said that it was alps fault for not reading it so they said they can't do and alps got no consequential damages. Court said not reading a contract is not a defense.
Vassilkovska v. Wooddfeild Nissan
♣ Woman purchased a used car from Nissan and financed it and she signed a big stack of papers and one of the things she signed was an arbitration agreement and that means that you can't go to court and you will get an arbitrator and you will make an agreement you've agreed to this other mechanism not allowed to go to court. She didn't understand she couldn't go to court and they had misrepresented the price so she sued them. They said could only arbitrate but they didn't have anything and exempted themselves from the arbitration. So the Supreme court rules that Woodfeild didn't have skin in the game and the arbitration agreement was void and lacked consideration. Void contract because it lacked consideration so they proceeded.
♣ Good example of a one-sided contract where Nissan didn't have any skin in the game or was not truly bound
♣ The contract initially appeared to include consideration by both parties but on further examination obligates only 1.
East Capitol View Community Development Corp. v. Robinson
East capital's defense of impossibility of performance does not stand and robinson sues them
Carpenter vs United States
pending case before the United States Supreme Court which raised the question of whether the government violates the 4th amendment to the United States constitution by accessing an individual historical cell phone location records without a warrant