Bus 404 Cases Midterm 1

Front 1

Case about negligence and liability

Back 1

Nichols v. Niesen

Front 2

4 prong test for breach of negligence

Back 2

1. Duty of care

2. Breach of Duty?

3. Direct causation?

4. Injury?

Front 3

Exceptions to negligence test (6 total)

Back 3

1. Proximity

2. Disproportionate Injury

3. Extraordinary causation

4. Undue burden

5. Fraudulent claims

6. No logical stopping point

Front 4

Which case was about waiving miranda rights?

Back 4

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Front 5

Which cases was about Personal jurisdiction?

Back 5

Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Fred Motor Company

Front 6

What is the 3 prong test for personal jurisdiction?

Back 6

1. Purposeful availment

2. Claim relates to defendant's related activities

3. Fair play (fair and substantial justice)

Front 7

Which case was about standing?

Back 7

Mayer v. Belichick

Front 8

What factor determines a plantiff's standing to sue?

Back 8

Whether there is legally protected interest.

Front 9

Which case was about expert testimony?

Back 9

Nickles v. Schild

Front 10

What is the reasoning behind the use of expert testimony?

Back 10

Use of expert opinion is valid and is allowed to draw upon all the knowledge, skill, or experience that he or she has accumulated, even without formal training on the applicable liability standards

Front 11

Which case was about the unconscionability of contract / arbitration clause?

Back 11

Lhotka v. Geographic expeditions

Front 12

What are some criteria to determine whether a contract was unconscionable?

Back 12

Large difference in bargaining power

Lack of ability to negotiate

Front 13

Which court case was about flag burning?

Back 13

Texas v. Johnson

Front 14

Which case was about balancing interest in freedom of speech?

Back 14

Morse v. Frederick

Front 15

Which case was about the protection under free speech?

Back 15

IOTA XI Chapter v. George Mason University

Front 16

What are the criteria used to determine the expressiveness of a conduct

Back 16

1. Intent to convey a message

2. The message would likely be understood

Front 17

What was the case regarding commercial speech?

Back 17

Educational Media Company at Virgina Tech v. Insley

Front 18

Central Hudson Test

Back 18

1. The regulated speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading 2. The regulation is supported by a substantial government interest 3. The regulation directly advances that interest 4. The regulation is not more extensive than necessary to serve the government's interest.

Front 19

Which case was about Eminent domain?

Back 19

Kelo v. City of New England, Connecticut

Front 20

Which case was in regards to partial takings?

Back 20

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Front 21

What is the 2 factor test for partial taking justifications?

Back 21

1. Nexus relationship between the legitimate purpose and conditions imposed

2. Rough proportionality between the burden and impact of the development

Front 22

Which case was about substantive due process?

Back 22

Skilling v. United States