LAW 501 Session 1 Case Study Brian Rusche Colorado Christian University LAW 501 Session 1 Case Study Burger King v. Rudzewicz This case determined whether personal jurisdiction applied to a franchisee of Burger King restaurants, whose headquarters was in Miami, Florida, when the franchisee and his restaurant were in Drayton Plains, Michigan. The Supreme Court found that personal jurisdiction did apply, holding that “Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a “substantial connection” with the forum State” (Warner, 2012, p. 135). Further: Rudzewicz’ refusal to make the contractually required payments in Miami, and his continued use of Burger King’s …show more content…
No. Since Rudzewicz was not a citizen of Florida, he could not be expected to appear. “The different states requirement means that no plaintiff can have permanent residence in a state where any defendant has permanent residence – there must be complete diversity of citizenship as between all plaintiffs and defendants” (p. 97). I believe that the ruling of the court in this case is consistent with a Christian worldview, in so far as we are called to be a light even in places we do not choose for ourselves. Jeremiah speaks to the people in exile when he says “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce” (Jeremiah 29:4) and “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7 NIV). Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. This case is about whether a state law which prohibits using certain large vehicles on highways within Iowa burdens interstate commerce. The court found that “Because Iowa has imposed this burden without any significant countervailing safety interest, its statute violates the Commerce Clause” (Warner, 2012. P. 182). 1. Under the Constitution, what gives Iowa the right to make rules regarding the size or configuration of trucks upon highways within the state? The Constitution creates a “partnership” between the states and the federal government called federalism. “The Constitution is a document
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), attorney Scott Keller argues on behalf of the petitioner—Walker III (Walker)—and attorney Roger George represents the respondent—Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). The case concerns the constitutionality of a decision made by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by SCV and its members, and addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Four contentions surround the issue: the form of speech embodied by the specialty license plate program; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” Justice Breyer delivers the opinion of the Court, affirming the plates as government speech. However, Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito dissents, concerned with. the Court’s broad interpretation of government speech.
In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.
“The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.” (Pollman, 1643)
The breach of contract filed by McDonalds against Simon Marketing was eventually tossed out of court as the US District Justice ruled the case did not belong in federal court. Simon Marketing filed suit against McDonalds on October 23, 2001 asking for 1.9 billion in damages on charges of fraud, breach of contract, breach of licensing agreement and defamation. Simon Marketing alleged that by keeping them in the dark during the nearly year long FBI investigation, McDonald’s ran a fraudulent campaign to intentionally destroy Simon for its own public relations and financial benefit.” (Anonymous, 2002, para. 3-6).
Case Summary: Many states wanted to adopt policies that would limit the lives of illegal immigrants. Arizona being the primary state vying for laws to punish unauthorized immigrants. On April 23, 2010 the governor of Arizona signed a law designed to “ ... identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.” The United States seeking to stop the law before it was in effect, argued that the law was in conflict with the federal laws on illegal immigration. In the law signed by Arizona, given was four provisions, a condition in an agreement or law. The four provisions were (1) that being in Arizona without the proper legal documentation
In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.
The majority’s argument primarily focused on the Court’s 2009 decision of Pleasant Grove City v Summum. This case presented a First Amendment question which the U. S, Supreme Court ruled that, “Although a park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts... The placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause” (PGC v Summum, 2009). By using the precedent of PGC v Summum, the majority stated, “Each plate is a government article serving the governmental purposes of vehicle registration and identification… The state of Texas requires Texas vehicle owners to display license plates, issues every Texas plate, and owns all of the designs on its plates” (Breyer, Walker v SCV). The majority opinion also argued that “both parties agree that the use of personal license plates is not a part of public forum”, which references the case law of International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672 –679, and “nor does Texas’s requirement that vehicle owners pay annual fees for specialty plates mean that the plates are a forum for private speech” (Breyer, Walker v SCV), which is taken from the case law of Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705. The Court acknowledged that the drivers who display a state’s license
The background of the case is a conflict between the state and the federal government over the creation of a minimum drinking age. The conflict was pursued when a car with four friends, all of age nineteen on a summer evening in 1984, crosses the state line into South Dakota where they could legally purchase beer. During the year of 1984, lawmakers in Washington D.C. we’re fortifying the National Minimum Drink Age Amendment which proclaimed that states who refuse to raise their drinking age to 21 would be deducted from 5% federal highway funds by the Secretary of Transportation. South Dakota challenged the rule because it is a state that legalized persons 19 years of age to procure alcohol. The law in question was whether Congress was in violation of the Twenty-first Amendment which granted states the elite power to regulate alcohol.
The Constitution also establishes the principle of federalism, or division between the federal government and the states. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government and the other powers
This case is distinguishable from Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown. Indeed, it is hard to imagine two cases that are factually more distinct, as Carbone involved a state favoring a single private business and our case involves simply a government pursuing a legitimate interest, not for profit nor to favor any private entity. C & A Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 387 (1994). Petitioners concede that they are strictly in the business for profit. And it’s a widely-known fact that when people engage in endeavors solely for profit—that usually remains their preoccupation. Besides, all private providers, both in-state and out-of-staters are free without restriction to operate in all other regions of the state where there are no state run facilities. Nevertheless, the regulation is strictly nondiscriminatory and absolutely does not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce—far from it. Our instant case is analogous to United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Hertimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. where the County required all waste collectors to deliver all solid waste to processing facilities that are operated by a public entity. There, the court held that such regulation did not violate the commerce clause because the ordinance clearly benefited only a public facility, while treating all private companies exactly the same. Like in United Haulers, the regulation here treats
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.
In reviewing the similarities between this case and Lopez, the possession of a gun in a local school zone, just as second-hand smoking in relations to restaurants, “is no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” In addressing a ‘direct and logical relationship’ like we have previously noted in The Carter Coal Case and The Sick Chicken Case, we concur that second-hand smoking does not present a ‘direct and logical’ contact with restaurant
After many months of research and debate, our company has chosen to a corporation with limited Liability as our legal structure. One of the many reasons for this chose is that while Police Box Burgers ‘ believes in working to make a profit, we also want to motivate our staff to feel that our restaurant is their restaurants as while to accomplish this we plan on offing our staff stocks in the company after working with us, as an added benefit. Another reason for this decision is that as a corporation with limited