Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data.
Brat Simpson and Arty Dodger case. However, there is a similar case in terms of the damages being sought, the Hudson's Bay Company v. David James White case. In this case, the Hudson's Bay Company sued Mr. White seeking punitive damages and damages for the surveillance, investigation and apprehension of Mr. White arising out of his shoplifting activity. In the result, the plaintiff was awarded "…judgment for trespass against the defendant in the nominal $300.00. The judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case awarded the plaintiff damages for surveillance and investigation; this is similar to what is being sought in the Northland Corp v. Brat Simpson, Arty Dodger case, the action against the defendants is for the amount of $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”.
Pregent engaged in a scheme to defraud TechFab’s creditors, bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy court by transferring certain TechFab assets, including equipment and ongoing business, to a newly formed company. Pregent arranged for that new company to pay compensation for TechFab’s assets directly to himself, then filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for TechFab to discharge its debts all while concealing the pre-bankruptcy transfer of assets and the agreement to pay compensation for those assets to Pregent. Furthermore, Pregent failed to disclose the transfers and compensation agreement in TechFab’s bankruptcy pleadings and during his testimony before a meeting of
Donavan is sued for failing to file tax return and pay tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 7201. Disposition of Lower Courts: The District Court held that Donavan’s behavior were sufficient to raise to grade of felony alleged offense of file returns and pay tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 7201.
Regarding the case of Mr. Bilbo Baggins litigation against Orc Industries Corporation for wrongful dismissal, there are quite a number of relevant legal principles and concepts that apply to the plaintiff’s case. Firstly, when Mr. Baggins was terminated by Orc Industries Corp. they failed to provide him with reasonable notice, which would imply that the company intended to terminate Mr. Baggins on the grounds of just cause. Just cause is a term that is applied when a company intends to terminate an employee for “Employee conduct that amounts to a fundamental breach of employment contract”. More specifically, just cause exists when an employee is guilty of one or more of the following; a serious misconduct (or several minor misconducts over a period of time), habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, willful disobedience, or incompatible conduct. (DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) Orc Industries Corp. however, did not cite any other reasons for terminating Mr. Baggins apart from “dishonesty, and coming to work drunk”.
“Brainwashing is the application of specific and identifiable techniques that are intended to, and do, undermine an individual’s ability to reason and impair his capacity to exercise an informed consent and replaces those functions with indiscriminate and unconditional obedience to the commands of a single leader,” as stated by Ford Green who was the attorney in Molko, (1190). Brainwashing theories have had different levels of success in the court systems. To see this, we can compare Merone v. Holy Spirit Assn., 125 Misc. 2d 1061, 480 N.Y.S. 2D 706 (1984); Turner v. Unification Church, 602 F.2d 458 (1979); Lewis v. Holy Spirit Assn., 589 f. Supp.
Ryan Borel Freshman Comp-Res, Anly & Documentation 2-27-2011 Professor Cameron Summary On the website NFL.com, an article was published discussing the argument between players and owners on whether or not the NFL regular season should be extended from the usual sixteen games to an even longer eighteen games. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has already proclaimed that the NFL reserves the right to do such as that is part of the current labor agreement that is set to expire in March. This has many NFL players concerned as the regular season games could lose their significance if it is increased from 16 games to 18 and as well as overall concern for their health. The length of an NFL season takes a tremendous toll on a player’s
Roger Goodell Commissioner was concerned over the replacement and Scott Green, the president of the NFL Referees Association announced that a new contract was agreed on. The ref's sat out for 115 days. Tim Millis, the executive director of the NFLRA, told USA TODAY Sports that a deal had been reach, “very good” and that most of the discussion were question-and answer session on non-economics matters. So the official got a deal worth returning for, but will there officiating really change the game. The controversial “ Fail Mary” definitely had some impact in the game between Seattle Seahawks and Green bay Packer.
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.