Legal Analysis of Indirect Expropriation Claim Under Korea-Us Fta

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? (P.166)

631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011) .

the particular level will be explained. The conclusion of the case will be described in detail as

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon

See Electcrostim Med. Servs., Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 962 F. Supp. 2d 887, 898-99 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (granting motion to dismiss); Encompass Office Solutions, Inc. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-02487-L, 2012 WL 3030376, *8-*9 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Team Healthcare/Diagnostic Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 3:10-cv-1441-BH, 2012 WL 1617087, *6 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss); Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., LLP v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., No. H-11-2086 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss); DAC Surgical Partners, P.A. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. H-11-1355, 2011 WL 3841946, *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss);

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002)

In effort to help you prepare for the upcoming Multi Disciplinary Team meeting for the case The State V. Sam Ruth, you have asked me to look further into the following concerns (1) Wendy’s “normal” medical exam findings. (2) Wendy’s diagnosis of a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and if it is relevant to her disclosure of sexual abuse; (3) Wendy’s resistance with testifying in court; and (4) Wendy’s recent recanting of her allegations of sexual abuse.

In regards to other legal issues that are to be addressed I will break them down by a case by case basis.

Rida Elias wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Roderick E. White solely to provide material for class discussion. The

To summarize the case of Kim v. Son, Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations, which eventually failed, and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad, he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood, stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out, when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim, so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge declared the contract void due to lack of consideration (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013).

I learned some new things from the case article that were not mentioned in Cynthia Cooper’s book titled Extraordinary Circumstances. However, the gist of it was the same. I will focus my paragraphs based on the three questions.

Our firm consisted of experienced entities that looked over topics such as legal matters, statistics that provided all the necessary knowledge in analyzing the facts and issues of the case. Our findings include future recommendations and strategic considerations that will assist in precluding a similar situation from arising.

Ken Mark wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Deborah R. Compeau solely to provide material for class discussion.