100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
LEB 320F Cases Exam Questions and Answers $10.49   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

LEB 320F Cases Exam Questions and Answers

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

Podias v. Mairs (2007) - Answer-Case about relationship between law and ethics Mairs hit Podias with his car eventually leading to his death, Swanson and Newell were in the car at the time of the accident and none of them helped Podias after the car hit him. Mairs was found liable and it was ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

  • October 15, 2024
  • 4
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
  • LEB 320F
  • LEB 320F
avatar-seller
lectknancy
LEB 320F Cases Exam Questions and
Answers
Podias v. Mairs (2007) - Answer-Case about relationship between law and ethics

Mairs hit Podias with his car eventually leading to his death, Swanson and Newell were
in the car at the time of the accident and none of them helped Podias after the car hit
him.

Mairs was found liable and it was a question of whether the liability extended to
Swanson and Newell. They motioned for summary judgement for their innocence and it
was granted.

Podias appealed.

The higher appellate court reversed and remanded (sent back to the lower court for
further proceedings) because the burden on the defendants was far outweighed by the
potential benefit to the deceased motorcyclist.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017) - Answer-Case about personal
jurisdiction

Tons of plaintiffs (most aren't California residents) filed a case in California against BMS
(incorporated in Delaware, HQ in New York, more than half of employees in NY or NJ)
with claims that their drug, Plavix, caused injuries.

California Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs could use specific personal jurisdiction
over BMS.

BMS appealed and the ruling was reversed. The plaintiffs lacked both general and
specific personal jurisdiction over BMS.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell (2001) - Answer-Case about false imprisonment

Cockrell was accused of shoplifting and taken to manager's office. They made him strip
and even take off a bandage that was covering a surgical wound. Nothing was found
and he then sued for false imprisonment.

Cockrell won the case because the court found that the detention amounted to a false
imprisonment.

Wal-Mart appealed.

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 lectknancy. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

83750 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
$10.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart