100%(18)18 out of 18 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 27 pages.
●Decision: Yes - appeal was confirmed. It was bartender's duty to allow use of the phone to the Good Samaritan during normal business hours, and he must not interfere (however, there is no rule requiring that he take action himself)●Bar fight case●Action v. inaction●Big Idea: Foreseeability15.Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court(pg 37): ●Over 600 people harmed by prescription drug●People of cali suing pharmaceutical company●Did the pharmacy harm in some way?●Which Court System?○Does it belong in cali?○Made it to US Supreme Court●Is the way cali determines jurisdiction constitutional?●General jurisdiction comes from place or residence or corporate “home” → suit for anything○Does this business call cali home?○NY and NJ Are home for BMS●Specific Jurisdiction, suit must arise from contacts with forum state (state where the lawsuit is brought) → suit for this issue only●At Issue: cali “Sliding Scale Approach” to specific Jdxn … %*○Unconstitutional○Numerical approach → big numbers → “more money = more jdxn” - Cali■Jurisdiction - the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.Ashcroftv. Iqbal:
-Iqbal (prisoner) arrested legally but was held in ADMAX SHU as a person of “high Interest” following 9/11, alleged he was mistreated (unconstitutionally) in prison by Attorney General Ashcroft and Chief FBI Mueller ○Did the complaint have enough info to make it past the threshold into court○ashcroft asked for motion to dismiss○Conceivable vs. Plausible■Conceivable = walk out of class and it's snowing (however not plausible)■Looking for things that are plausible, not just conceivable ○Failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against petitioners○Conceivable but not plausible■Ex: it’s conceivable for our UT football team to go finals but not plausible ○Issue: Is there a legal claim here?○Decision: No legal claim - detaining of Muslims was justified because ofincidents of 9/11 - motion to dismiss was granted○Very controversial16.Rileyv. Willis:-Sad story about getting hit by a car●Tort case p43: someone’s been harmed or injured in an improper way○More than one person making different choices can contribute to the same harm (contributory negligence)●Pedestrian didn’t have dog on leash--got hit by the car chasing the dog●original ruling -- Riley must pay 60% of damages●Riley appealed●Reversible error●Request instruction accurately states applicable law●Facts of case support giving instruction●Instruction was necessary for jury to properly resolve issues in case●Issue: The judge gave incorrect jury instructions (dogs must be on a leash)●Decision: Reversed and remanded for a new trial - failed to include negligence of plaintiff by not having dog on leash\ z17.Mageev. Bea Construction Corp.:-Property in NJ, contractor: Puerto Rico, people ●Oral agreement to build house (didn’t build house)●