Widget Corporation Case Study

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

A state court may respond in various ways to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that raises issues of federal

Topnotch Computers, the owner of a computer store, contracted with Repair Guru, the owner of a computer repair business, to allow Repair Guru to own and operate a computer repair service offered within the Topnotch Computers store. Topnotch Computers subsequently terminated the three -year contract with Repair Guru with thirty-five months remaining. Five months thereafter Repair Guru was able to contract with another firm, Best Computer, to provide its computer repair equipment for use by Best in its stores. Repair Guru then filed suit, claiming that it was entitled to conduct the computer repair operations for Topnotch Computers for an additional thirty-five months and that through such operations it would have earned a profit of $150,000. Decision for whom and in what amount and

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

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

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Donald Margolin is defendant and Novelty Now Inc is the plaintiff. In this specific court case, New York doesn’t have the jurisdiction to take the case because the three men (Chris, Matt, and Ian) which are contracted through Novelty Now Inc. states that the suit before them has to be settled in Florida. Although this would only stand if the defendant has never had any business with anyone in the state of Florida per personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant’s having some contact with the place where the court is located (Per, 2008).

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In the Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated vs. George E. Kent case, Jacob & Youngs, the plaintiff, claims that there was a breach of a clause in the contract with the defendant, George E. Kent. The clause stated that any work that is either defective or not in accordance with specifications will be

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

The criminal justice system holds trials on cases. Most cases are dealt with outside of court. If a case is significant enough and is approved, then it goes to the state court. Most cases do not pass the state court, but if someone objects to the state court’s decision, then the case may go to the federal court. Another way a case is able to be held at the federal court is if the case involves two different states and involves over $70,000. According to crash course, there are four different scenarios in which the federal courts have original jurisdiction (case goes directly to federal court without the interaction of state or local courts). In all of these scenarios the cases must be brought in an original district court. The first scenario is in cases where the law at issue is a federal law. The

This report is dealing with the case of ACME Electronics vs. Otto Gunter. Gunter purchased a computer from ACME Electronics in 2002. In 2004, the hard drive crashed and he brought it in to ACME Electronics to have it replaced, as well

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.

case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to