Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Irving trust V Deutsch
|
corp opportunity theory- Deutsch took advantage of Sonora products and lost.
|
|
|
Smith V Van Gorkum
|
business judgement rule- board didnt ask questions so he was not liable for a bad decisioin
|
|
|
walt disney derivative litigation
|
eisner was fired but it didnt rise to level of gross negligence- duty of care
|
|
|
BMW v Ira Gore
|
Punitive Damages- purchased new car, didnt know it had been fixed, punitive damages of 4 million
|
|
|
Cubby V Compuserve
|
Defamation- not held liable for what was on the page
|
|
|
Stratton Oakmont V Prodigy Services
|
Held liable for what was on the page- defamation
|
|
|
Gordon V May Dept Store
|
false imprisonment- cant throw somebody up against a wall
|
|
|
Palsgraff
|
proximate cause- waiting for a train, mrs palsgraf won
|
|
|
escola v coke
|
res ipsa loquitur, glass blew up b/c it was shaking, misuse in the bottle
|
|
|
lebek v mcdonalds
|
negligent failure to warn- hot coffee, lebek won with punitive damages
|
|
|
green v collagen corp
|
collagen wasnt liable, because of the rigorous standards they got through
|
|
|
williams v braun ice cream
|
reasonable expectations- ate a pit from the cherry in the ice cream
|
|
|
greenman v yuba power
|
1962 california- beginning of tort cases. one that sells the harmful product is liable
|
|
|
welge v planters lifesavers co
|
defective design- glass broke on peanut jar
|
|
|
peterson v backrodt
|
man defect-pedestrian got hit because of defective breaks. case dismissed
|
|
|
penthouse v barnes
|
agreements, pamela won, couldnt use her name
|
|
|
mcdonalds ring
|
by estoppel- mcdonalds should be sued because the agent of md was responsible for the ring in the burger.
|
|
|
williams v inverness corp
|
by estoppel- pierced at a mall and sued the co that supplied the owner with equipment b/c of apparent authority. williams won
|
|
|
hamilton hauling v gaf
|
gaf won no authority because he knew normally it would have to be signed off by a higher up but he didnt do it
|
|
|
lazer v thermal
|
in scope, went off the path on the way home
|
|
|
sussman v florida coast
|
out of scope, crashed because of bringing a cake to work
|
|
|
tarnausky v tarnausky
|
asked him to take a stand but he doesnt want to because he will go from limited to general partner
|
