California Vs. Hertz Case Study

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

The Arizona state legislature passed into law S.B 1070, which was intended to address issues related to illegal aliens in the state. The law made it a crime for illegal aliens to be in Arizona, without legal documents, it also authorized local and state law enforcement to enforce federal laws and prohibited the hiring, sheltering and transportation of illegal aliens. The legislation initiated constitutional concerns over violation of civil rights and was considered as encouraging racial profiling. There were also demonstrations against the legalization. The department of justice sough to stop

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Donald Margolin is defendant and Novelty Now Inc is the plaintiff. In this specific court case, New York doesn’t have the jurisdiction to take the case because the three men (Chris, Matt, and Ian) which are contracted through Novelty Now Inc. states that the suit before them has to be settled in Florida. Although this would only stand if the defendant has never had any business with anyone in the state of Florida per personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant’s having some contact with the place where the court is located (Per, 2008).

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

At the time of the first incident involving Riley, he was known to be affiliated with the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego, California. On August 2, 2009, Riley with a few other gang members shot at a man of their opposing gang. Shortly after the scene took place, Riley and his crew then drove off in Riley’s vehicle. After a few days, on August 22, 2009, a police officer had pulled Riley over for expired tags on the current vehicle he was driving. At the same time, after running his license, the officer discovered that Riley was driving on a suspended license. Following the official procedure, Riley’s vehicle was to be impounded. Before his vehicle could be towed away though, the officer must go through and search

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

This suit is filed the ground of nuisance, on the claims that the Roger’s apartment is messy and causing the rodents and other insects to invade all the apartments in the building.The purpose of the suit is to enjoin the further operation of the rodents and other insects invading the apartments. This cases was upheld in the state California.

In this paper I will discuss a case involving Henry, a resident of Nevada, who sued Adam, a resident of Utah in the Federal Court in California. Henry sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. I will answer the following questions about this case. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction? What rules of procedure will the court use? Why? And what rules of substantive law will the court use? One of the most essential questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. Jurisdiction means the power to hear a case. Many courts

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

However, in Bridges v. California the American Supreme Court did note that, “[l]egal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Moreover, in Maxwell , the Court prescribed certain methods for controlling the pre-trial publicity: