Analysis Of The Margolin 's Lawsuit With The Rules Of Jurisdiction Essay

Jurisdiction played a key role in the outcome of the lawsuit in A Civil Action. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, filed the original complaint against W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods in state court. Schlichtmann, a personal injury attorney, spends most of his time there; personal injury is heard much less frequently in federal court. William Cheeseman, the attorney for W. R. Grace, almost immediately removes the case to federal court since W. R. Grace’s headquarters is in New York and the amount in question is clearly over

The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: Personal jurisdiction which allows courts to have jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Specific to corporations, personal jurisdiction only applies in the state in which the company does business, is incorporated and has it principle office. In Margolin’s suit, personal jurisdiction would not apply because although the company does business in the state of New York, both Novelty Now and Funny Faces are not incorporated or have principle offices in this state.

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

To illustrate, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had jurisdiction over Owens and Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (“Fitzner”). Lowry v. Owens, 621 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ala. 1993). Fitzner is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi. Id. at 1263. A third party initiated contact with Owens who bought cars from Fitzner for resale in Alabama. Id. Lowry picked up the car with a third party, and a later inspection revealed the car had been wrecked and was not new as advertised. Id. Lowry sued Owens and Fitzner for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit from the original car sale. Id. at 1264. The Supreme Court of Alabama needed to determine if Fitzner had sufficient minimum contacts to justify the court asserting personal jurisdiction over Fitzner in Alabama. Id. Minimum contacts is made up of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Id. at 1265. Fitzner’s alleged fraud alone is not sufficient for purposeful

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Personal jurisdiction isn’t the only thing that the courts will look at it. They will also look at minimum contacts. Minimum contact is a nonresident defendant with the forum state that is sufficient for jurisdiction over the defendant to be proper. A lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (Inm, 1992) (Min, 2001-2016).

In this brief, I am going to prove to you, the judges and the court, that Officer Raymond’s initial stop is objectively justified under the Fourth Amendment and the New Setonia Statute. Because the truck was old, Officer Raymond’s experience being a police officer, and Mr. Jackson’s making movements towards the glovebox while Officer Billy was approaching the car, this proved there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Additionally, even if Mr. Jackson’s car was not a commercial vehicle, there were enough other factors pertaining to search of the truck that made the mistake of law objectively reasonable. Based on all of the facts and the evidence listed in the case, the state of New Setonia is going to win.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

In West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004), a California resident, Patricia Sanford, filed a class action complaint against West Corporation and WTC (a subsidiary of West Corp.), telemarketing firms organized in Delaware and headquartered in Nebraska, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the consumers legal remedies act; (2) unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices; (3) untrue and/or dishonest advertising; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud and deceit; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Essentially, one of West’s telemarketers had misrepresented a product during a sales pitch in which the caller (Sanford) had purchased the product over the phone. West claims that the California court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them because they did not maintain any offices or employees in California, was not licensed to do business in California, nor did they own any property located in California. Moreover, West motioned the court to quash the service of summons; however, the court denied the request and ruled that the court was authorized to assert personal jurisdiction over their corporation.

Determining the best court for this lawsuit for Funny Faces Donald Margolin should first consider the following his personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and his minimum contact. Personal jurisdiction deals with the power, the power the court 's has over the parties involved in a certain case. It applies to this certain case because Margolin is suing for his rights because his face turned blue after using Funny Faces after shave cream. On the other hand subject matter jurisdiction is the courts power to hear a certain case. This basically determines what courts will be involved in what case. The importance of subject matter jurisdiction is crucial in this case because Donald Margolin is trying to get his case heard by the right court in order for justice to be served. Margolin doesn’t want to have a lack of subject matter jurisdiction which can cause his case to be dismissed. Margolin case may fall under one of the three jurisdictions which are exclusive federal jurisdiction, state jurisdiction, and concurrent jurisdiction. Very few case falls under exclusive jurisdiction such as bankruptcy cases, admiralty cases, and cases dealing with federal copyright. State jurisdiction deals with more cases that is not involved with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court system. State court also deals with cases involving adoption and divorce. Concurrent jurisdiction on the other hand means that both state and federal court have jurisdiction over a case. If a case

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

Personal Jurisdiction “also known as “jurisdiction in personam” is the power of a court to require that a party or a witness come before the court; extends to the states boarders in the state court system and across the courts geographic district in the federal system”(pg. 42). In this case, there are three states involved; first is a Internet Company called Funny Face which is based in California, second state involved is Novelty Now Inc. in Florida who manufactures and distributes the product, the third state is New York which is where the customer lived that received the faulty product. This product was a aftershave lotion which had an harmful side effect due to a ingredient that is not FDA approved. According to the contract between Funny Face and Novelty Now all conflicts must go through the state of Florida, therefore this case would be under the state of Florida jurisdiction. “Subject matter jurisdiction is a courts power to hear certain kinds of cases” (pg44). It determines which court system will hear a particular case; state jurisdiction, exclusive federal jurisdiction, or concurrent jurisdiction. The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over very few cases including bankruptcy cases, lawsuits in which one state sues another, and claims against the United States. State court systems have a bigger range of jurisdiction including all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Concurrent federal jurisdiction means that both state and federal

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.