100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers 2024 €11,91
In winkelwagen

Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers 2024

 0 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • LEB 320F
  • Instelling
  • LEB 320F

Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers

Voorbeeld 2 van de 8  pagina's

  • 2 augustus 2024
  • 8
  • 2024/2025
  • Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
  • Vragen en antwoorden
  • LEB 320F
  • LEB 320F
avatar-seller
Court Cases LEB 320F Exam Questions and Answers
1.1 Soldano v. O'Daniels - Answer -Liability when someone requests aid.
Context: A fight broke out, someone tried to contact police and was refused a phone. Someone was killed in the fight. (O'Daniels is the bartender)
Conflict: Defendant did not allow emergency use of a phone. Was he negligently interfering?
1.2 Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles - Answer -The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ["district courts shall have original jurisdiction" over a civil "class action" if, among other things, the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000."]
Context: SF Insurance didnt include contractor fees, which screwed a lot of people over.
Conflict: Knowles spoke for the rest of the people in the CA lawsuit without right. Had no
right to stipulate that it would not exceed 5M.
2.1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Answer -Concept: Motion to Dismiss
Context: Iqbal, a Muslim, was detained following 9/11 and sued on the basis of discrimination by gov. officials. Conflict: Did Iqbal have the right facts to dismiss the trial on basis of discrimination.
Riley v. Willis - Answer -Concept: An appeal on a judge's "Instructions to the Jury"
Context: Willis was walking her dog and Riley ran it over. Question was Riley's liability.
Conflict: The judge should have informed the jury of a local law that would have had a substantial effect on their decision.
SEC v. Ginsburg - Answer -Concept: Appellate courts uphold lower court facts, but not always interpretations of law.
Context: Ginsburg was being shady and probably insider trading. Conflict: The judge called a judgement notwithstanding the verdict, higher court said no go.
Oxford Health Care Plans LLC v. Sutter - Answer -Concept: Arbitrators decisions are pretty much final, even if they are completely wrong.
Context: Oxford brought a class lawsuit by physician Sutter to arbitration to decide if class arbitration for the real problem is what should be done. Arbiter said yes, contract stipulates that you must use an arbitrator and class arbitration is the way to go (vs. regular arbitration vs just Sutter).
Conflict: Oxford did not like the result, and tried to bring it to court on the basis that the arbitrator "exceeded his authority" (he did not)
Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital - Answer -Concept: Laws change with modern society.
Context: Textbook case of negligence, however the Hospital defended itself with its status as a nonprofit.
Conflict: Court ruled in favor of hospital, was appealed on the basis that the ''non-profit immunity' was not correct. The court upheld this idea.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill - Answer -Concept: Whether or not a statute can effect construction that had begun before the statute was enacted.
Context: TVA is building dam, people dont like it, find an endangered species, and try to
get construction halted by the statute.
Appellate court found that they had to stop.
Gonzales v. Raich - Answer -Concept: Interstate Commerce Clause includes crops grown for personal consumption.
Context: Gonzales (Attorney General) and Raich (weed cultivator). Raich argued that the DEA could not enforce against her cultivation.
Granholm v. Heald - Answer -Concept: Interstate Commerce Clause and the Internet.
Context: The wineries were allowed to sell directly to consumers in New York and Michigan.
Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. - Answer -Concept: Free speech is precious. "creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. " Intredasting

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper millyphilip. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €11,91. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 70089 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou


€11,91
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd