Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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
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