a)
Given situation:
Person G quit his job and vended his property for loss based on the decision of a newspaper columnist that State X will be flooded on Sept 1. As on the date, flooding didn’t came so he sued against the columnist in State X court for damages. Later on court dismissed the case on the grounds that a failure to state a cause of action under applicable State law.
Later he appeal, State X Supreme Court supported the lower court of law. After three months, lower court has ruled that a reader could sue a columnist for incorrectly predicting flooding.
To discuss: Whether State Y supreme court following the ruling of State X court as on the matter of stare decisis.
b)
To discuss: Whether State Y Supreme court have followed the ruling of state X until State Y Supreme court issued ruling.
c)
To discuss: Whether Country U Supreme court overrules the ruling issued by State X Supreme court.
d)
To discuss: Whether Country U Supreme Court will resolve the conflicts between State X Supreme Court and State Y Supreme Courts when they rule exactly in opposite way.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 3 Solutions
MINDTAP BUSINESS LAW FOR MANN/ROBERTS S
- Carli is a landlord in Florida. She places all security deposits and advance rents into an interest-bearing account in a Florida bank. Which Act makes this legal? This is not legal. Under the Florida Real Estate Commission's statutes, a landlord can only place security deposits and advance rents in a non-interest bearing account. the Florida Housing and Urban Development Act the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act the Real Estate Procedures Actarrow_forwardKennecott Copper Corp. brings a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order that rejected a portion of the State of Nevada’s implementation plan dealing with the control of stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2). All of the SO2 emissions come from a single source—the Kennecott copper smelter at McGill. The EPA bases its decision on the belief that the Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be met by continuous emission limitations to the maximum extent possible and that the Act permits the intermittent use of emission controls only when continuous controls are not economically feasible. Kennecott contends that the EPA must approve any State implementation plan that will attain and maintain an NAAQS within the statutory time period. Who will prevail? Why?arrow_forwardHelvey brought suit against the Wabash County REMC (REMC) for breach of implied and express warranties. He alleged that REMC furnished electricity in excess of 135 volts to Helvey’s home, damaging his 110-volt household appliances. This incident occurred more than four years before Helvey brought this suit. In defense, REMC pleads that the Uniform Commercial Code’s (UCC’s) Article 2 statute of limitations of four years has passed, thereby barring Helvey’s suit. Helvey argues that providing electrical energy is not a transaction in goods under the UCC but rather a furnishing of services that would make applicable the general contract six-year statute of limitations. Is the contract governed by the UCC? Why or why not?arrow_forward
- National-Southwire Aluminum Company (NSA) owns and operates a plant that emits fluoride. When its wet scrubbers were turned off as part of its regular maintenance program, NSA discovered no appreciable change in ambient fluoride levels. Because of the expense of operating the scrubbers and its belief that using the scrubbers did not significantly affect ambient fluoride levels, NSA desired to turn the scrubbers off permanently. Accordingly, NSA sought a determination from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that turning off the scrubbers would not constitute a modification requiring the application of new source performance standards to the plant. Turning off the scrubbers would result in an increase of more than 1,100 tons per year of fluoride emissions with no decrease in the emission of any other pollutant. This increase was nearly four hundred times the level the EPA had established as inconsequential. The EPA determined that turning off the scrubbers would constitute a “new…arrow_forwardState the legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London,arrow_forwardIn 1967, a Chicago brewer, Meister Brau, Inc., began making and selling a reduced-calorie, reduced-carbohydrate beer under the name “LITE.” Late in 1968, that company filed applications to register “LITE” as a trademark in the U.S. Patent Office, which ultimately approved three registrations of labels containing the name “LITE” for “beer with no available carbohydrates.” In 1972, Meister Brau sold its interest in the “LITE” trademarks and the accompanying goodwill to Miller Brewing Company. Miller decided to expand its marketing of beer under the brand “LITE.” It developed a modified recipe, which resulted in a beer lower in calories than Miller’s regular beer but not without available carbohydrates. The label was revised, and one of the registrations was amended to show “LITE” printed rather than in script. In addition, Miller undertook an extensive advertising campaign. From 1973 through 1976, Miller expanded its annual sales of “LITE” from fifty thousand barrels to 4 million barrels…arrow_forward
- New York City's charter authorized the New York City Board of Health to adopt a health code that it declared to have the force and effect of law. The board adopted a code that provided for the fluoridation of the public water supply. A suit was brought to enjoin the carrying out of this program on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and that money could not be spent to implement such a program in the absence of a statute authorizing the expenditure. It was also claimed that the fluoridation program was unconstitutional because there were other means of reducing tooth decay; fluoridation was discriminatory by benefiting only children; it unlawfully imposed medication on children without their consent, and fluoridation was or may be dangerous to health [Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531] Was the code's provision valid? Provide a rationale or explain how you came to this determination.arrow_forwardRensselaer Water Company contracted with the city of Rensselaer to provide water to the city for use in homes, public buildings, industry, and fire hydrants. During the term of the contract, a building caught fire. The fire spread to a nearby warehouse and destroyed it and its contents. The water company knew of the fire but failed to supply adequate water pressure at the fire hydrant to extinguish the fire. The warehouse owner sued the water company for failure to fulfill its contract with the city. Can the warehouse owner enforce the contract? Explain.arrow_forwardBob, an engineer, is a new employee at Airbag Industries, which specializes in manufacturing automotive airbags. Before his employment, Bob is required to sign various documents indicating that he would have access to confidential information related to Airbag Industries' business practices, customer lists, and other information that must remain confidential. It further provided that any new developments created by Bob would be the property of Airbag Industries. Further, it provided that if Bob left the company he could not compete against the company in the United States for 10 years. Bob leaves three years later to set up his own airbag company. What intellectual property issues are involved in this scenario?arrow_forward
- Bob, an engineer, is a new employee at Airbag Industries, which specializes in manufacturing automotive airbags. Before his employment, Bob is required to sign various documents indicating that he would have access to confidential information related to Airbag Industries' business practices, customer lists, and other information that must remain confidential. It further provided that any new developments created by Bob would be the property of Airbag Industries. Further, it provided that if Bob left the company he could not compete against the company in the United States for 10 years. Bob leaves three years later to set up his own airbag company. Explain why protecting their intellectual property is important to Airbag Industries. What intellectual property issues are involved in this scenario?arrow_forwardBishop Logging Company is a large, family-owned logging contractor formed in the Lowcountry of South Carolina. Bishop Logging has traditionally harvested pine timber. However, Bishop Logging began investigating the feasibility of a fully mechanized hardwood swamp logging operation when its main customer, Stone Container Corporation, decided to expand hardwood production. In anticipating an increased demand for hardwood in conjunction with the operation of a new paper machine, Stone Container requested that Bishop Logging harvest and supply hardwood for processing at its mill. In South Carolina, most suitable hardwood is located deep in the swamplands. Because of the high accident risk in the swamp, Bishop Logging did not want to harvest hardwood by the conventional method of manual felling of trees. Because Bishop Logging had already been successful in its totally mechanized pine logging operation, it began a search for improved methods of hardwood swamp logging centered on mechanizing…arrow_forwardJohn Campbell, an employee of Manhattan Construction Company, claims to have injured his back as a result of a fall while repairing the roof at one of the Eastview apartment buildings. He filed a lawsuit against Doug Reynolds, the owner of Eastview Apartments, asking for damages of $1,500,000. John claims that the roof had rotten sections and that his fall could have been prevented if Mr. Reynolds had told Manhattan Construction about the problem. Mr. Reynolds notified his insurance company, Allied Insurance, of the lawsuit. Allied must defend Mr. Reynolds and decide what action to take regarding the lawsuit.Some depositions and a series of discussions took place between both sides. As a result, John Campbell offered to accept a settlement of $750,000. Thus, one option is for Allied to pay John $750,000 to settle the claim. Allied is also considering making John a counteroffer of $400,000 in the hope that he will accept a lesser amount to avoid the time and cost of going to trial.…arrow_forward
- Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill EducationManagement (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSONSpreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
- Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSONBusiness Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSONFundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON