Cherice worked at WalMart. She is a supervisor in charge of the lawn and garden department. One day an employee in her department forgot to clean up a spill and Cherice fell breaking her right arm. She goes to the hospital. She cannot use her right arm after the doctor puts it in a cast. She missed work and cannot drive. She feels depressed. Cherice sues WalMart for compensatory damages.
Describe what Cherice might be able to seek compensation for from WalMart.
Jones lived in California. She met Williams, a therapist in New Mexico. For four years, Williams provided Jones weekly psychotherapy and dream counseling by telephone from New Mexico. Several times, Williams went to California to provide treatment for Jones there. Jones eventually sues Williams in court for in California medical malpractice. Williams asks the court to dismiss the complaint because the court lack jurisdiction.
Does the California court have jurisdiction? Include in your answer how a court gets jurisdiction over a case.
The father of an eleven-year-old child sued the manufacturer of a jungle gym because the manufacturer had failed to warn users of the equipment that they might fall off the gym and get hurt, as the boy did in this case. The father also claimed that the jungle gym was “unreasonably dangerous” (a ground, or basis, for liability under product liability law) because, as his son began to fall and reached frantically for a bar to grasp, there was no bar within reach. The father based his argument in part on a previous case involving a plaintiff who was injured as a result of somersaulting off a trampoline. In that case [Pell v. Victor J. Andrew High School, 123 Ill.App.3d 423, 462 N.E.2d 858, 78 Ill. Dec. 739 (1984)], the court had held that the trampoline’s manufacturer was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because it had failed to warn of the trampoline’s propensity to cause severe spinal cord injuries if it was used for somersaulting.
Should the court be convinced by the father’s arguments? Why or why not?
American Business Financial Services, Inc. (ABFI), a Pennsylvania firm, sells and services loans to businesses and consumers. First Union National Bank, with its principal place of business in North Carolina, provides banking services. Alan Boyer, an employee of First Union, lives in North Carolina and has never been to Pennsylvania. In the course of his employment, Boyer learned that the bank was going to extend a $150 million line of credit to ABFI. Boyer then attempted to manipulate the stock price of ABFI for personal gain by sending disparaging e-mails to ABFI’s independent auditors in Pennsylvania. Boyer also posted negative statements about ABFI and its management on a Yahoo bulletin board. ABFI filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against Boyer, First Union, and others, alleging wrongful interference with a contractual relationship, among other things. Boyer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Could the court exercise jurisdiction over Boyer? Explain.
In 1983, Gary Peel, an Illinois attorney, began placing on his letterhead the following statement: “Certified Civil Trial Specialist/By the National Board of Trial Advocacy.” In so doing, Peel violated Rule 2-105(a) of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from holding themselves out as “certified” or “specialists” in fields other than admiralty, trademark, and patent law. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) censured Peel for the violation. The ARDC claimed that Peel’s letterhead was misleading because it implied that Peel had special qualifications as an attorney, although in fact no such thing as a civil trial specialty existed in Illinois; because the word certified might be interpreted to mean “licensed,” and the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) did not have the authority to license lawyers; and because, given the fact that not all attorneys licensed to practice in Illinois are certified by the NBTA, Peel’s assertion might erroneously be construed by some readers to mean that those who are certified by that board are superior to those who are not. Peel argued that Rule 2-105(a) violated his constitutional right to free speech and appealed the ARDC’s decision to the United State Supreme Court.
What will the Court decide? Discuss.
. In 1957, Rhodes and several other Georgia landowners entered into a sixty-five-year timber purchase contract with Inland-Rome, Inc. Thereafter, Inland-Rome cut timber from the landowners’ land and then removed it for processing in certain Georgia facilities, after which it was shipped as lumber products to points throughout the country. In 1986, the landowners claimed that Inland-Rome had breached the contract, and they filed suit. Inland-Rome moved to compel arbitration because the parties had agreed, in their contract, to arbitrate any disputes arising thereunder. Georgia law enforces arbitration clauses only if they are contained in construction contracts. Arbitration clauses are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act only if the contracts in which they appear affect interstate commerce. Inland-Rome contended that because lumber products from the cut timber were shipped throughout the nation, the contract related to interstate commerce, and therefore the Federal Arbitration Act should apply.
Will the court agree? Discuss.