Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine i. Issue? NEGLIGENCE – PROXIMATE CAUSE ii. Hospital breached duty of providing accurate test results iii. Husband beat wife up, thought she was cheating iv. Someone got beat up, lost job, got divorced v. Hospital found innocent, not linked to injustice f. Cole vs. St of LA DPS i. Issue? ASSAULT AND BATTERY ii. Officer Cole consented to training exercise iii. Got injured with a baton iv. Court agreed that consent was exceeded g. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Cockrell i. Issue? FALSE IMPRISONMENT ii. Detained kid for suspected shoplifing iii. Strip search iv. Wal-Mart argued they have the privalege
v. Court disagreed with Wal-Mart h. GTE Southwest v. Bruce i. Issue? INTENTIONAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ii. Employees threatened by supervisor iii. He did it to multiple people iv. Instead of termination, company moved him to different locations v. Very open and shut case vi. GTE found guilty i. Speakers of Sport Inc. v. Pro Serv. Inc i. Issue? INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE W/ BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP ii. Sued competitor iii. Lost because it wasn’t a business tort iv. No business relationship j. Integrated Cash Management System v. Digital Transactions Inc i. Issue? MISAPPROPRIATION ii. Found guilty because it was a well-protected, important trade secret k. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics i. Issue? PATENTABLE MATERIAL ii. Myriad developed new strain of modified DNA iii. Association sued because they thought it was not patentable material iv. Court concluded modified DNA was something new, it was a creation, not obvious to experts l. Larami Corp v. Alan Amron and Talk to Me Products i. Issue? PATENT INFRINGEMENT ii. Company threatened Larami for infringement on water gun iii. Larami goes to court to ask if they are infringing 1. Pretty certain they weren’t iv. Court agrees with Larami m. Benay v. WB Entertainment i. Issue? Copyright infringement ii. Not copyright infringement, not exactly identical iii. WB case got dismissed n. UT v. KST Electric i. Issue? Trademark infringement ii. UT asked for cease-and-desist due to logo iii. Filed TM infringement suit iv. UT won, likelihood of confusion v. UT claimed extra damages under anti-dilution statute 1. Not known globally, court said it did not qualify
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 11 pages?
- Spring '08
- i., ii., Embezzlement, a. Elements