Acfm 220 - Business Law Exam 1

Front 1

Substantive Law

Back 1

creates, defines, and regulates legal rights and duties

Front 2

Procedural Law

Back 2

sets forth the rules for enforcing those rights and duties that exist by reason of substantive law

Front 3

Public LAw

Back 3

branch of substantive law that deals with the governments rights and powers and its relationship to individuals or groups.

Front 4

Private Law

Back 4

branch of substantive law that governs individuals and legal entities and their relationships with each other.

Front 5

Civil LAw

Back 5

defines duties, the violation which constitutes a wrong against the party injured by the violation

Front 6

Criminal Law

Back 6

established duties, the violation which is a wrong against the whole community

Front 7

Common Law

Back 7

Body of law that serves as a precedent for determining later controversies

Front 8

Stare Decisis

Back 8

Courts adhere to and rely on rules of law that they or superior courts relied on and applied to in prior similar deacons.

Front 9

Federalism

Back 9

Division of governing power between federal and state government

Front 10

Supremacy Clause

Back 10

Federal law is supreme, any conflict with state laws the state must yield (Williamson V Mazda)

Front 11

Judicial Review

Back 11

Process by which courts determine if government actions adhere to the constitution

Front 12

State Action

Back 12

Any action of the state of federal government or any of their subdivisions (Brentwood Academy V Tennessee Secondary school)

Front 13

Commerce Power

Back 13

Federal government can regulate the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.

Front 14

Rational Relationship Test

Back 14

Tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government.

Front 15

Strict Scrutiny Test

Back 15

Tests whether the regulation is necessary to promote a government interest

Front 16

Intermediate Test

Back 16

Must have a substantial relationship to an important government object

Front 17

Williamson V Mazda

Back 17

Cali Court --> Concluded that federal law did preempt state law; federal law approves any type of seat belt

US Supreme Court --> Federal law didn't preempt state law because state law included additions to the federal law so federal law would be applied anyways.

Front 18

Brentwood V Tennessee schools

Back 18

US Supreme court judged that the Tennessee Association is a "state entity"

public institution within it, employees given state pensions.

Case remanded to be continued in lower courts under this standard

Brentwood is a private institution, Association violated Brentwoods 1st and 4th amendment rights - actions weren't of state concern.

Front 19

Department of Rev of Kentucky V Davis

Back 19

KY exempts state income tax on bonds issued within the state, but not other states or private bonds.

Plaintiff sued KY for paying state income tax on out of state bonds claiming the tax regime restricted interstate commerce.

US Supreme court favor of KY

Local benefit exceeds the rebutive harm to interstate commerce

Front 20

Brown V Entertainment

Back 20

Violent video games restricted to minors

companies argued that the law suppressed 1st amendment rights

US Supreme court ruled in favor of companies

Although content is offensive it is media, just like an news or film and conveys a social message and is therefore free speech

Front 21

Brown V Board of Ed

Back 21

Brown unable to attend white schools

Being deprived of equal education, argued that the separation violates equal protection in the 14th amendment

Judgement for plaintiffs

Belief that all children should have equal opportunity for education

Front 22

Actus Reus

Back 22

Wrongful or overt act (physical)

Front 23

Mens Rea

Back 23

The criminal or mental intent

Front 24

Subjective Fault

Back 24

purposeful, knowing, and reckless (having the intent to commit a crime)

Front 25

Objective Fault

Back 25

involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe under a given circumstance (carelessness or negligence)

Front 26

Mala in se

Back 26

wrongs in themselves or morally wrong, like murder

Front 27

Mala prohibita

Back 27

not morally wrong but declared wrongful by law, like driving on the wrong side of the road

Front 28

Vicarious Liability

Back 28

Liability imposed on one person for the acts of another. An employer is liable for the acts of their employees if they gave consent to them to participate in the activity.

Front 29

White Collar Crime

Back 29

nonviolent crime involving deceit, corruption, or breach of trust

Front 30

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Back 30

federal law intended to stop organized crime from infiltrating legitimate business

Front 31

Larceny

Back 31

trespassers taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to deprive the victim permanently of the property.

Front 32

False Pretenses

Back 32

A crime of obtaining title to property of another by making materially false representations of an existing fact with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to defraud

Front 33

Robbery

Back 33

Larceny with two additional elements, property is taken directly from the victim or in the immediate presence of the victim and the act is done under the threat of force

Front 34

Extortion

Back 34

commonly called blackmail, making threats for the purpose of obtaining money or property.

Front 35

Duress

Back 35

coercion by threat of serious bodily harm is a defense to criminal conduct other than murder

Front 36

Mistake of fact

Back 36

honest and reasonable belief that conduct is not criminal is a defense

Front 37

Entrapment

Back 37

inducement by a law enforcement official to commit a crime is a defense

Front 38

Fourth Amendment

Back 38

protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure

Front 39

Fifth Amendment

Back 39

protects persons against self incrimination, double jeopardy, and being charged with a capital crime except by grand jury indictment

Front 40

Sixth Amendment

Back 40

Provides the accused with the right to a speedy and public trial, opportunity to confront witnesses, have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and right to counsel.

Front 41

Tort

Back 41

liability involuntarily assumed as imposed by law

Front 42

Defamation

Back 42

false communication that injures a persons reputation, libel is written or electronic and slander is spoken

Front 43

Misuse of Legal Procedure

Back 43

torts of malicious prosecution, wrongful civil proceeding, and abuse of the process that protect an individual from unjustifiable litigation

Front 44

Disparagement

Back 44

publication of false statements about another persons property of products (harm to economic interests)

Front 45

Philip Morris USA vs. Williams

Back 45

Williams smoked heavily, PM distributes

Originally ruled that they had to award 79.5 million in punitive damages

But, Has to be some kind of reasoning for amount of punitive damages levied

Only one death occurred so Oregon court can't levy fines comparable for all of society.

Therefore Supreme Court remanded case to lower courts to reanalyze quantity awarded to plaintiff

Front 46

Negligence

Back 46

conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm

Front 47

Reasonable Person Standard

Back 47

degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise under all the circumstances

Children and physical under same reasonable person standard as equivalent

Mental the same as regular non mentally disabled person

Superior skill has these skills taken into account

Emergencies the reasonable person standard applies but the emergency is taken into circumstances

Front 48

Negligence per se

Back 48

the negligence violates a statute

Front 49

Factual Cause

Back 49

the defendants conduct is a factual cause of the harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct

Front 50

Scope of liability (Proximate cause)

Back 50

liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendants conduct tortious

Front 51

Foreseeability

Back 51

excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the defendants tortious conduct that they were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent

Front 52

Burden of proof

Back 52

plaintiff must prove that defendants negligence conduct caused harm to a legally protected interest

Front 53

Contributory negligence

Back 53

failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own protection, which in a few states prevents the plaintiff from recovering anything

Front 54

Comparative Negligence

Back 54

damages are divided between the parties in proportion to their degree of negligence; applies in almost all states

Front 55

Assumption of Risk

Back 55

plaintiff's express consent to encounter a known danger; some states still apply implied assumption of the risk

Front 56

World Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson

Back 56

Audi is struck from behind and fire ensued that burned the plaintiff in Oklahoma, not either parties home state

Defendant entered special appearances saying that Oklahoma's exercise of jurisdiction over them offended limitations on state jurisdiction

US Supreme court reversed decision saying that their wasn't minimum contact within the state for them to uphold jurisdiction

Front 57

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company

Back 57

Edmonson was hurt while at work when a fellow employee backed a truck into him on a wall

Leesville used peremptory challenge to remove black persons from the jury

The use of these peremptory challenges did not constitute state action and as a result did not violate constitutional guarantees against racial discrimination.

Front 58

In personam jurisdiction

Back 58

the jurisdiction of a court over the parties to a lawsuit

Front 59

long arm statutes

Back 59

expand jurisdictional reach beyond those persons who may be personally served within the state

Front 60

in rem jurisdiction

Back 60

jurisdiction to adjudicate claims to have property situated within the state if the plaintiff gives those persons who have an interest in the property reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard

Front 61

Quasi in rem jurisdiction

Back 61

jurisdiction over property rather than a person