A

Front 1

Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. (2010)

Back 1

Issue: The section providing a provision for arbitration within the contract between the two parties was being questioned as to it's unconscionable nature.

Rule: Unconscionability has both a procedural and substantive element. The procedural element requires oppression or surprise. The substantive element concerns whether a contractual provision reallocates risks in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner.

Analysis: GeoEx's provision for arbitration is decidedly one-sided, as it mandates for the other party to meet in San Francisco (regardless of their place of residence), it allows for the maximum amount returned to be the exact amount of the trip initially paid for, and it is a non-negotiable contract, which is supposedly an industry standard.

Conclusion: Arbitration is denied.

Front 2

People v. Sisuphan (2010)

Back 2

Issue: Sisuphan claims that he lacked fraudulent intent when he took the money, and that the trial court's ruling violated his Fifth Amendment right to present a defense and "all pertinent evidence of significant value to the defense."

Rule: Fraudulent intent is an essential element of embezzlement. Although restoration of the property is not a defense, evidence of repayment may be relevant to the extent it shows that a defendant's intent at the time of the taking was not fraudulent.

Analysis: Sisuphan's undisputed purpose--to get McClelland fired--was beyond the scope of his responsibility and therefore outside the trust afforded him by the dealership.

Conclusion: The judgement is affirmed.

Front 3

Herring v. United States (2009)

Back 3

Issue: Herring was arrested in Coffee County under the false pretenses that there was an outstanding warrant for him in Dale County, a warrant that had been recalled. Herring was caught with illegal drugs and an illegal gun, yet he motioned to exclude the evidence because his arrest was illegal.

Rule:Evidence should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis: The certain instance of negligence was not chronic and would not equal the amount lost with the exclusionary rule, so the exclusionary rule does not apply to Herring.

Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgement. The exclusionary rule does not apple when a police mistake leading to an unlawful search is the result of an isolated instance of negligence.

Front 4

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 4

Issue: Whether Miranda's constitutional rights were violated or not as he was not informed of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present before he confessed.

Rule: If a person is taken into custody, they must be read their right to remain silent and to have counsel present.

Analysis: Miranda was not expressly given his rights, therefore his confession was not valid, for he was not at all aware that he had the right to remain silent and have counsel present during the police interrogation.

Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court held that Miranda could not be convicted of the crime on the basis of his confession because his confession was inadmissible as evidence. For any statement made by a defendant to be admissible, the defendant must be informed of certain constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. If the accused waives his or her rights to remain silent and to have counsel present, the government must demonstrate that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Front 5

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

Back 5

Issue: Whether the railroad guards had been negligent in their conduct concerning the Palsgraf incident.

Rule: The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.

Analysis: The parcel containing the fireworks, to the prudent eye, was unpredictably dangerous, as it was not apparent that explosives were within.

Conclusion: Palsgraf's complaint was dismissed. The railroad had not been negligent toward her because injury to her was not foreseeable. Had the owner of the fireworks been harmed, and he had filed the suit, there could well have been a different result.

Front 6

Pfenning v. Lineman (2010)

Back 6

Issue: Pfenning claims that the defendants owed her a duty to ensure her safety and that failing to do so is negligence on their part that resulted in her injury, amongst other charges.

Rule: There is no duty from one participant in a sports activity to another to prevent injury resulting from an inherent risk of the sport.

Analysis: In participating for three hours on the course prior to the injury, the plaintiff was decidedly aware of the risk one must take when participating in or being in close proximity to parties practicing this certain sport. In doing this, Pfenning took the risk and the defendants were not responsible for her safety while they played the sport.

Conclusion: Finding no issues of material fact and that the defendants are entitled to a summary judgement as a matter of law, it was concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgement in favor of the defendants.

Front 7

Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008)

Back 7

Issue: Whether the design of the cigarettes issued by Philip Morris was negligent or not.

Rule: A product is defective in design for purposes of tort liability if the benefits of the design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in the design, or if the product, used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.

Analysis: Philip Morris claims that a more safe alternative was not available at the time of manufacturing, therefore they did not make an error with respect to the finding of liability for a design defect based on the risk-benefit test.

Conclusion: The Court of Appeal of California for the Second District affirmed the trial court's judgement as to the finding of liability. Philip Morris failed to show any error with respect to its liability for product liability based on a design defect.

Front 8

Wyeth v. Levine (2009)

Back 8

Issue: Levine claims Wyeth's product's label warning was inaccurate.

Rule: The regulation permits a manufacturer to unilaterally increase their stated warning, and the fact that the FDA approves a drug's label does not establish that it would prohibit a change.

Analysis: The FDA's involvement was not meant to be the sole mean of ensuring that a drug is safe and effective.

Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The FDA's approval of Phenergan's label did not preempt Levine's claim against the drug's manufacturer.

Front 9

Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc. (2010)

Back 9

Issue: Whether the manufacturer, Sun Ergoline, Inc. is liable for the injury.

Rule: In strict products liability, the focus is on the nature of the product rather than the conduct of either the manufacturer or the person injured.

Analysis: Regardless of the liabilities contract the customer signed, the manufacturer is liable for a defect in their product and is not protected.

Conclusion: The court of appeals' decision was reversed and they were instructed to rule similarly with like cases in the future.