Summary judgment

Dorman v. International Harvester Co. Court of Appeal of California 1975 Summary: In 1975 William Dorman (plaintiff) purchased a tractor from International Harvester Company (defendant) that required Dorman to sign a “Retail Installment Conditional Sales Contract.” That contract encompassed two key aspects of the sale, the first being a disclaimer of the implied warranties of merchantability while the second was a fitness for particular purpose. The conflict lies in the placement of the…

Courts in Nevada have routinely established that, “summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial;" properly supported factual allegations of the party opposing summary judgment must be accepted as true.” Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589 (1991). ARGUMENT Daily Mirror was well within its rights to terminate Ms. Cohen’s employment at any time and for any reason…

1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) Facts: The Schulzes are appealing the trial court’s summary judgement in favor of Kroger Co., and their knowledge or the existence of any hazardous conditions in its store. Procedural History: Customer, Dixie Schulz allegedly slipped over clear liquid and fell, brought premisis-liability action against Kroger. The Hendricks Superior Court, Karen M. Love, J., granted Kroger’s motion for summary judgement. Customer appealed. Issue: Did the trial court err in…

Case Name: Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 1988, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 849.F.2d 460 Procedural History: Bette Midler (Plaintiff) appealed a judgment summary of the US District Court granting the summary judgement in favor of Ford Motor Co (Defendant). Middler moved for appropriation of her distinct voice for use in a car advertisement. Statement of Facts: Ford Motor Co. aired a car commercial which they played songs from the 70’s to give a nostalgic feeling to their audience. Ford…

Summary – In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a position at a national retailer called Abercrombie & Fitch, which specializes in higher end casual trendy wear for young adults and children. Abercrombie & Fitch hires “models” which need to confirm to a “look” when hired. Specifically, the “look” was to reflect Abercrombie & Fitch’s style and forbids black clothing and head coverings such as baseball caps. When Ms. Elauf applied for the position she wore a hijab (head scarf). The hijab was not…

Summary: Class# 10 In the Class # 10 chapter, Managing Valuation, Julnes discusses various challenges and difficulties faced in valuing programs and policies. Evaluation is defining what the program is worth, defining the program’s merit and whether or not the program is worth it or not (Julnes 3). Evaluation is very critical to the public sector as it confirms and provides evidence whether or not it is a good program or not (Julnes 3). Julnes discusses four methods of analysis for valuing.…

violated Title Vll of the civil rights act of 1964 by refusing to hire Samantha Elauf because of her head scarf. “The District Court found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Elauf damages. The Tenth Circuit Court later reversed by granting Abercrombie summary judgment, holding that liability…

Anthony Vo COM 440 Case Write-Up Invasion Of Privacy In 2012, Janis E. Roberts sued her former employer (CareFlite) for what she reasoned was an invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. CareFlite argues that Roberts was terminated for what they deemed as “unprofessional and insubordinate” (Janis E. Roberts v. CareFlite) activity posted on her Facebook. Roberts was working as a paramedic and she posted a comment on her coworker Schoenhardt’s page claiming that she “wanted to slap…

QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether Lawndale High School (“LDHS”) and Principal Li’s action of sending Daria home for violating the dress code is a constitutionally permissible limitation on an individual’s First Amendment right of free speech. II. Whether Lawndale High School and Principal Li’s action of sending Trent home for violating the dress code is a constitutionally permissible limitation on an individual’s First Amendment right of free speech. STATEMENT OF THE CASE LDHS has a dress code…

Express, the plaintiff was in the protected category and alleged gender discrimination because she hurt her knee while working and asked for light-duty. Plaintiff was denied light-duty pursuant to Title VII. The trial court granted employers Summary Judgment because plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case The key word was “comparator”. Plaintiff argued that two male employees who had received light-duty assignments were valid comparators, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument…