Business Law Midterm Cases

Front 1

unanimous decisions

Back 1

microsoft
matrix
nasa

Front 2

dissent

Back 2

kelo
chamber
pliva
palsgraf
brown

Front 3

who dissented kelo

Back 3

oconnor, rehnquist, scalia, thomas

Front 4

who dissented pliva

Back 4

sotomayor, ginsburg, breyer, kagan

Front 5

who dissented chamber

Back 5

breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor

kagan took no part

Front 6

9the circuit

Back 6

brown
nasa
matrix
chamber

Front 7

microsoft appeals court

Back 7

us court of appeals for federal circuit

Front 8

kelo court of appeals

Back 8

supreme court of connecticut

Front 9

pliva appeals court

Back 9

united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

Front 10

palsgraf appeals court

Back 10

court of appeals of new york

Front 11

Brown author

Back 11

scalia

Front 12

kelo author

Back 12

stevens

Front 13

matrix author

Back 13

sotomayor

Front 14

microsoft author

Back 14

sotomayor

Front 15

nasa author

Back 15

alito

Front 16

chamber author

Back 16

roberts

Front 17

palsgraf author

Back 17

cardozo

Front 18

palsgraf minority opinion

Back 18

andrews

Front 19

pliva author

Back 19

thomas

Front 20

chamber- who won at each level
decision at end

Back 20

whiting won all 3
LAWA does not preempt by IRCA
affirmed

Front 21

lawa

Back 21

legal arizona workers act

Front 22

irca

Back 22

immigration act of 1986

Front 23

[T]/[F] CHAMBER was a 5-3 decision; Kagan took no part.

Back 23

true

Front 24

[T]/[F] CHAMBER was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.

Back 24

true

Front 25

3. CHAMBER majority opinion was authored by________________.

Back 25

roberts

Front 26

4. [T]/[F] Federal question in the CHAMBER case involved IRCA

Back 26

true

Front 27

[T]/[F] In the CHAMBER case and in the HAGAN case, the plaintiff brought a pre-enforcement action based upon an allegation that the state statute violated a federal law.

Back 27

false

Front 28

6. [T]/[F] The CHAMBER case plaintiff claimed that IRCA was pre-empted by LAWA.

Back 28

false

Front 29

[T]/[F] In the CHAMBER case, Justice Breyer argued that LAWA was pre-empted by the IRCA.

Back 29

true

Front 30

According to the majority opinion in the CHAMBER case, an employer who hires an illegal alien to work in Arizona would face the business death penalty IF:

Back 30

[d] The employer intentionally hires an illegal worker without using E-verify

Front 31

9. [T]/[F] The business death penalty refers to the concept that Arizona can suspend or revoke the license of a business failing to comply with LAWA.

Back 31

true

Front 32

10. [T]/[F] Scienter is required before the so-called business death penalty could be applied under LAWA.

Back 32

true

Front 33

defamation

Back 33

the false statement of facts that harms the good reputation of a living person published to a third party

Front 34

trespass

Back 34

intentionally and wrongfully entering ones property without permission

Front 35

negligence

Back 35

careless behavior and not standard upheld by a reasonable person that causes harm.
a duty of due care, breach, causation, damages

Front 36

strict liability

Back 36

even if person was not careless and obeyed laws, still liable. defective products, ultra hazardous activities, wild animals

Front 37

15. [T]/[F] Scienter is required for the tort of battery.

Back 37

true

Front 38

16. [T]/[F] If P suffers no physical injury, then the Impact rule precludes (prevents from happening) recover for emotional distress damages.

Back 38

true

Front 39

If P sues D for negligence, but P herself was careless, then in VA the rule of Comparative negligence would apply.

Back 39

false

contribuitory

Front 40

[T]/[F] If P sues D for strict liability, then P must allege and prove D was negligent

Back 40

false

Front 41

19.[T]/[F] Strict liability applies if the harm resulted from an ultra hazardous activity, wild animal or defective product.

Back 41

true

Front 42

[T]/[F] Scienter is required in Strict Liability torts.

Back 42

false

Front 43

[T]/[F] MICROSOFT was a unanimous decision.

Back 43

true

Front 44

[T]/[F] MICROSOFT was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.

Back 44

false

Front 45

MICROSOFT majority opinion was authored by________________.

Back 45

sotomayor

Front 46

[T]/[F] NASA v. NELSON was a “federal” case due to the federal question at issue.

Back 46

true

Front 47

[T]/[F] In the MICROSOFT case, the other party _______________________ alleged that MICROSOFT committed patent infringement.

Back 47

true

i4i limited partnership

Front 48

[T]/[F] The MICROSOFT case defense alleged that the other party’s patent was invalid.

Back 48

true

Front 49

The basis of obtaining a PATENT initially depends upon demonstrating that the item for which the PATENT is desired is

Back 49

not obvious, genuine, useful and novel

Front 50

In the MICROSOFT case, one of the factual points of contention concerned the allegation that the patented item had been on the market for more than a year before the patent was issued by the USPTO and who was required to prove this allegation.

Back 50

true

Front 51

uspto

Back 51

united states patent and trademark office

Front 52

In the MICROSOFT case, the determination of WHO MUST PROVE WHAT is called by this legal term:

Back 52

burden of proof

Front 53

10.The issue in the NASA case was:______________________________________.

Back 53

does nasas background investigations violate federal contract employees right to informal privacy

Front 54

obscenity
and case related

Back 54

explicit sexual conduct
-brown vs the board of entertainment merchents

Front 55

impact rule

Back 55

requirement of physical contact/injury with an individual person in order for damages fir emotional distress to be imposed
-hegan

Front 56

infringement

Back 56

unauthorized use of copyrighted or patented material or for a trademark
-microsoft vs i4i

Front 57

privacy

Back 57

right to be free of unnecessary public scrutiny or to be let alone

Front 58

microsoft who won at each level

Back 58

district- i4i won
appeals- i4i won
supreme- i4i won
microsoft infringed i4i
affirmed

Front 59

[T]/[F] MATRIXX was a unanimous decision.

Back 59

true

Front 60

T]/[F] MATRIXX was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.

Back 60

true

Front 61

matrixx vs

Back 61

siracusano

Front 62

plaintiff and defendent in matrix case

Back 62

plaintiff = siracusano
defendent= matrixx

Front 63

MATRIXX majority opinion was authored by________________.

Back 63

sotomayor

Front 64

[T]/[F] MATRIXX was a “federal” case due to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Back 64

false

Front 65

[a&b] In the MATRIXX case, the other party [name them] [a]_________________ alleged that [b] ____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________.

Back 65

siracusano
zicam did not disclose reports

Front 66

[a&b]The MATRIXX case cause of action was based upon a failure by [name the party] [a]____________________to [describe the behavior] [b]_______________________________________

Back 66

matrix
fail to disclose that zican caused anosmia (loss of smell)

Front 67

Name the MATRIXX leading product involved in this case ____________________.

Back 67

zicam

Front 68

[T]/[F] In the MATRIXX case, one of the factual points of contention concerned the allegation that the complaint failed to plead scienter.

Back 68

true

Front 69

a&b].In the MATRIXX case, the determination of what is needed to state a cause of action under the S.E.C. Act of 1934 Section #[a]________________ [state the section #] includes

Back 69

10 b-5

[ii] Material misrepresentation or omission and scienter

Front 70

10.[T]/[F] According to the MATRIXX case, statistically significant data is required to establish the inference of causation

Back 70

false

Front 71

matrixx outcome at courts

Back 71

district:
p-sircusana
d- matrixx-won

appeals:
appelent= siracusano- won
defendent=matrix
-reverse decision

supreme:
respondent=siracusano-won
appelent= matrixx
affirmed

Front 72

rule of matrixx

analysis

Back 72

securities exchange act 1935
-primary requirements include registration of any securities listed on stock exchange, disclosure, and margin & audit requirments

must disclose adverse event reports

Front 73

matrixx essentially was

Back 73

withholding information from stock holders

Front 74

issue in matrixx

Back 74

can a plaintiss state a claim under the securities exchange act based on pharmaceutical company's non disclose of reports even though the reports are not alleged to be statistically significant?

Front 75

conclusion matrixx

Back 75

yes. the court ruled that the materiality of pharmaceutical company's non disclosure of adverse event reports in a securities fraud action does not depend upon whether there is a statistically significant health risk

Front 76

nasa vs nelson court decisions

Back 76

district:
p- nelson
d- nasa - won

appeal:
a - nelson - won
r - nasa
reversed

supreme
a-nasa - won
r- nelson

reversed and remanded

nasas background checks dont violate federal employee s consitutional right to informational privacy

Front 77

1. [T]/[F] Brown was a unanimous decision.

Back 77

false

Front 78

2. [T]/[F] Brown was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.

Back 78

true

Front 79

3. Brown majority opinion was authored by________________.

Back 79

scalia

Front 80

4. [T]/[F] Brown was a “federal” case due to the diversity of citizenship of the parties
to the case.

Back 80

false

Front 81

[T]/[F] In the Brown case, the respondents originally brought a “pre-enforcement”
suit to challenge the constitutionality of the California statute prohibiting sale of
violent video games to minors.

Back 81

true

Front 82

6. [T]/[F] The case was first heard in the federal district court; the USDC ruled that
the California law violated the 1stamendment.

Back 82

true

Front 83

[T]/[F] The Brown case was appealed to the next level; the name of that court was
the USCA for the 9thcircuit and the 9thcircuit USCA affirmed the decision of the USDC.

Back 83

true

Front 84

8. [T]/[F] Finally, the Brown case was then appealed to the ultimate appeals court, the USSC; the USSC rendered a split decision.

Back 84

true

Front 85

9. The majority opinion of the USSC on the Brown case was:

Back 85

affirm

Front 86

The first amendment’s key principle is that government shall not abridge freedom of expression and there are NO exceptions to this key principle.

Back 86

false

obscinity

Front 87

obscenity

Back 87

sexually explicit conduct

Front 88

et al

Back 88

and others

Front 89

certiorari

Back 89

order by which higher court reviews decision of lower court

Front 90

strict scrutiny

Back 90

form of judicial review that determines constiutionality of laws

Front 91

rationale basis

Back 91

test determine laws constitutionality, lower than strict scrutiny