Case Study: Kelly Mala Vs. Crown Bay Marina

Becky Price replaced her oil furnace with a propane furnace back in 2006, but the oil furnace’s pipes were still in place. Price canceled her contract for oil refills with High Pointe Oil Company, but there was a problem on November 2007, in which Price’s address was added to the list of oil fill ups and the truck driver filled up the oil pipes with 400 gallons of fuel oil which caused the destruction of Price’s house and her belongings. So, Price sued the company for the failure of not removing the oil furnace’s pipes, including for non-economic damages such as emotions and feelings.

i. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defamatory statement made by the defendant is

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

In order for evidence to be properly authenticated, “the trial judge must determine that there is proof from which a reasonable juror could find that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.” Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 638 (2015). Indeed, the purpose of Md. Rule 5-901 is to ensure that the evidence’s proponent has satisfied a burden of production sufficient to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude the evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. The standard for authenticity, however, is

Tiller Construction Corporation entered into two contracts with Nadler, the CEO of Glenmar, where Tiller would do “the work” for Nadler at Westridge for $637,000 and the other for Tiller to do “the work” for Nadler at Cranberry for $688,800. Nadler agreed to be personally liable to Tiller for the payment of both contracts. When the job was done, Nadler refused to pay the remaining balance of $229,799.46 for the Cranberry project and a remaining balance of $264,273.85 for the Westridge project. So Tiller sued Nadler for the amount owed, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Representative Trent Franks(R) Arizona, 8th asserted that the United States Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London threatens property rights. Consequently, Congress must remedy the effects of the Court’s decision by actively protecting small businesses, and homeowners. The Kelo decision ruled that the government’s decision to take property for the purpose of private economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the government did not provide just compensation to the property owners, thus, ignoring the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Further, Franks cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s principal dissent with the majority’s

The city of New London was in an economic depression and came up with a plan to buy properties and make it commercial, residential and a recreational element to it. They city was able to buy most of the properties but some landowners refused to sell their property. So the city used element of domain power to take the property. Kelo one of the landowners decided to sue. Their main argument was that the cities plan didn’t involve public use, which is what element of domain is used for. The Supreme Court ruled that the cities plan had public benefit so they upheld the cities decision to use element of domain and took the property.

I, Anthony Suarez, write this opinion to (support the majority) on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

2) The court has to evaluate all the evidence presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant at the trial. The court needed to establish that “an unreasonable use of the defendant’s property so as to cause substantial interference with the enjoyment or use of the plaintiff’s property has

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

II. Can our client show a special injury from another earlier suit against him, as required to have an action for malicious prosecution, when his charter boat was seized pending the suit as allowed by state, and when his professional reputation was damaged because of the suit?

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.