Final Cheat sheet - Heart of Atlanta vs U.S prohibits...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Heart of Atlanta vs. U.S . – prohibits racial discrimination nationwide in public facilities, including local motels, based on its power under the commerce clause (Article 1, section 8, Law 3) Wickard vs. Filburn – wheat production by an individual farmer indented wholly for the consumption on his own farm was subject to federal regulation by the commerce clause Brown vs. Board of education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954) – was a landmark decision of the supreme court which overturned to rulings of Plessey vs. Ferguson in 1896, On May 17, 1954 the warren courts decision was unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution U.S vs. Lopez – court held for the first time in 60 years that congress had exceeded its regulatory authority under the commerce clause. The act repelled was to ban the possession of guns within 100 feet of the school. This had nothing to do with the commerce clause and should be state law. Alfonso Lopez carried a .38 caliber gun in the school and was charged under the gun free school zone act of 1995 Lockheed air Terminal vs. Burbank – ordinance that prohibits takeoff before 11am – 7pm is overturned because the feds control air traffic regulation this is governed by the supremacy clause: the supreme law of the land McGann vs. H&H Music Co. – The U.S. court of appeals affirmed a district court hold that the plaintiff-employee was not discriminated under the employee retirement home income security act (ERISA) when his employer became self insured and reduced the maximum lifetime benefits for employees with AIDS from 1000000 to 5000. Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad – fireworks knock over scale into Palsgraf. Sues for negligence. Not it her favor because her injury was not foreseeable ( proximate cause) VW world wide vs. Woodstein - car bought in NY broke down in OK violation of due process due to minimal contacts. Amendment 4 and 14 Gary Porter construction v. Fox construction Inc Are the excluded sections of a contract valid if the sections were left out of the contract by mistake? Yes. Deals with sustainable performance Blackmon v. Iverson Past consideration sufficient to create binding contract? No. Deals with reliance on a past promise. Court ruled in favor of Allen Iverson Vokes v. Arthur Murray Inc. If a party possesses superior knowledge, can a statement of opinion be regarded as a statement of fact and be actionable? Yes. Revels v. Miss America Organization In order to assert rights as a third party beneficiary, must the contract be executed for the direct, and not incidental, benefit for the third party. Yes.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 4

Final Cheat sheet - Heart of Atlanta vs U.S prohibits...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online