Paradise Resort Case Analysis

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any person or business that abides within a certain geographic area, or any out of area defendant as long as there was minimum contact with the area to justify jurisdiction. Each state has its own long arm statue in place that defines minimum contact. Personal jurisdiction for federal courts is broad, extending to any persons within the United States, whereas personal jurisdiction for state courts is much more narrow. Different courts have the authority to hear different kinds of cases. Subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts is relatively narrow. There must be an issue of federal law, or there must be a dispute between citizens or businesses of different states and the amount in question must at least $75,000. States have a much more broad subject matter jurisdiction; they can hear pretty much any matter, whether involving state or federal law.

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

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

John Marshall reiterated the same concept in 1832 with another case, Worcester v. Georgia. In this case, Marshall rules that, “Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of congress.” In this ruling, he established that the Cherokee had the protection of the United States national government and that Georgia had no jurisdiction on Cherokee land. Chief Justice John Marshall set the precedent that the United States central government has supremacy over of the

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The verdict of the jury found the Defendant liable and was in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial for judgment as a matter of law.

It questioned whether the state of Georgia was subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government? The details involved the state of Georgia purchasing supplies from a South Carolina businessman. Once Georgia got the supplies Georgia did not pay up. Chisholm sued Georgia regarding a supposed debt. But Georgia disagreed that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. The state of Georgia says that the federal government does not sovereignty over state governments. The U.S. Supreme court had to decide whether they will have jurisdiction over the state of Georgia. The question is whether or not the people of the United States form a nation. The Court agreed that Georgia was subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Just like a common man has to obey laws, so does a state. I agree that everything a person has to do and should do, like repay a loan, a state has to and should do

The state has not yet resolved the suit, but that aside, it’s worthwhile to evaluate the larger implication. From the state’s actions, we can deduce two things: 1. The state

The Plaintiffs, Garetsons, own a well in Haskell County, which they use for irrigation pursuant to a vested water right. The Defendant, American Warrior Inc. (AWI), owns two nearby wells with junior water appropriation rights. Garetsons sued AWI requesting an injunction to prevent AWI from pumping groundwater. The District Court found that AWI’s wells were causing significant impairment and drawdown of the Garetsons’ water rights. As a result, tThe District Court granted an

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.

The Heads who are residents Georgia booked a week-long stay in Hawaii with Paradise Resort which is formed in Delaware and conduct the principle of business in Hawaii. The Heads also booked spa appointment before the trip. Mr. Head went to the spa appointment and slipped on the floor afterwards. Mr. Head was injured due to the incident and required surgery to correct the Injuries. Mr.Head file a lawsuit against Paradise Resort in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for compensation of $100,000. The issue is whether this court have jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit.

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

The issue that Coral Divers Resort (CDR) is facing is that it has been unable to distinguish itself from other resorts in the New Providence, Bahamas region and has been experiencing declining revenues and unprofitability for the past three years as a result. Other resorts that have been able to specialize in certain segments of the diving industry have been doing well over the past years as the industry continues to grow. CDR must look for opportunities in the diving industry to find a unique niche and gain a competitive edge that will lead to an increase its revenues. The SWOT analysis (Exhibit 1) looks at the current state of CDR and the environment it is operating in.

The latter half of this is followed under the American approach for torts has been summarized under s. 145 of The Restatement (Second) Conflict of laws. This also provides for the most significant relationship rule to apply in case of defamation. Most of the