United States V. E. C. Knight Company Case Study

Facts: In 1952 the United States was in a conflict in Korea, and the demand for steel

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

It is necessary to determine when L was removed as director of SPG and SET to ascertain the validity of the plaintiffs’ appointment as administrators. To establish L’s time of removal, one must first conclude whether the decision at the meeting took effect immediately, or if the subsequent messages exchanged between M and L, and belated lodging with ASIC, suggest a later removal date.

First, the legal issues, in this case, are an employee was hired, but the proper steps were not taken to determine if he was eligible for the position. He used a fake name, fake social security number and even provided a card he altered, and lied on his application regarding being arrested and having felonies. The Linden Oaks facility did mandate Jeffrey McGee aka Khalifah Shabazz to undergo a fingerprinting screening until after the charges were filed against him by a resident. If the fingerprints were completed, they were not filed correctly, leaving Linden Oak at fault. The court decided to “grant summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent hiring claim and remand for further proceedings on that claim” (Walsh, 2016).

Identify the battery issue involving defendants Green and DeVon in the case of Paur v. Rose City Dodge, Inc

Herein will begin with an overview and introduction from personal knowledge of DixieLands Glory, LLC; a small family owned and operated business for the purpose of owning and managing rental properties. The company was initially operated as Warf’s Rentals; in 2003 the business was renamed and incorporated to become DixieLands Glory, LLC. The business is operated from a small office located in the family’s home, which is located in Linden, Tennessee. DixieLands Glory owns, operate, and manage approximately eighty-five rental units ranging from single-family homes to 4-plexes and mobile home parks. The properties that the company owns are mostly located in the states of Tennessee and Alabama. Of this, about 50 percent are located in the family’s hometown of Linden, Tennessee, with the remainder being located in two other Tennessee counties, and Decatur, Alabama.

Facts: This is a Title VII action alleging harassment based on national origin and religion. The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Rafiq. On May 11, 2001, Mohommed Rafiq was hired as a car salesman. Rafiq was born in India and is a practicing Muslim. The alleged harassment began on September 11, 2001. When he arrived for work that afternoon, his co-workers were watching news coverage of the terrorist attacks and one of them asked him in a mocking way, "Where have you been?", as if to infer that he had participated in the attacks.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allowed Congress to have an extensive authority to criminalize conduct, send those to prison who engage in that conduct, and pass laws that will govern the prisons and prisoners in the course of "carrying into Execution" the listed powers that are "vested by" the "Constitution in the Government of the U.S.," authority granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Section 4248 was a small addition to the set of federal prison related/mental health statutes that had previously existed for many decades.

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

In 1892, the E.C. Knight Company acquired the American Sugar Refining Company and monopolised the sugar refining industry in the United States. This violated the newly enacted Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), which outlawed any attempt to monopolise trade in the United States . The government sued the company and the case went to the Supreme Court .

“The considerations of practicality and principle discussed … above appear to support the respondents ' case, namely that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. The position is perhaps rather less clear when one examines the decided cases … However, to put it at its lowest, the authorities do not preclude us adopting the respondents ' case in that they do not represent a clear and consistent line of authority to the contrary effect. Indeed, we consider that, taken as a whole, the authorities favour the respondents ' case.” (per Lord Neuberger in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 at [46].

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

The recent decision of the High Court in Bank of Ireland v Eteams International Limited [2017] IEHC 393 has clarified how the question of whether a transaction involves the sale of an asset, or the creation of security over that asset, should be assessed. Until now, Irish practitioners making this assessment had to rely upon the presumption that the Irish position would reflect the approach from an English legal perspective, being the principles as set out by the English courts in a series of decisions commencing with Re George Inglefield Ltd. These decisions demonstrated a reluctance to re-characterise a transaction that is described as a sale as something else, unless the transaction is clearly a "sham".