Premium Essay

George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief

In: Other Topics

Submitted By swifto2850
Words 681
Pages 3
1. George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (Mass. 1971) 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hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics.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 mental anguish and emotional distress from these tactics, her health deteriorated, and she suffered a heart attack. Her attorney requested that these harassing tactics cease. D continued the tactics, which caused further emotional distress and mental anguish, which lead to another heart attack. 3. History: The case was first brought to trial court where it was dismissed due to the lack of a tort. P has now appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. 4. Issue: The court must decide if the facts and inferences presented could constitute of action in favor of the plaintiff. 5. Rules: Both sides of the case are looking at the Spade rule, so stated: "We remain satisfied with the rule that there can be no recovery for fright, terror, alarm, anxiety, or distress of mind, if these are unaccompanied by some physical injury; and if this rule is to stand, we think it should also be held that there can be no recovery for such physical injuries as may be caused solely by such mental disturbance, where there is no injury to the person from without." (Spade v. Lynn & Boston R.R. 168 Mass. 285, 290). The parties differ in…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Akers V. Sedberry Brief

...Akers(P-employee) v. J. B. Sedberry, Inc.(D-bank) Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville 39 Tenn. App. 633, 286 S.W.2d 617 (1955). SM: The UCC is not involved in this case. The SM is regarding the offer and possibility of an acceptance of an employee’s resignation. F: Sedberry (D), through majority shareholder Mrs. Sedberry, entered into a contract with Akers (P) whereby Akers would serve as Chief Engineer for five years. Sedberry entered into a similar five year employment contract with Whitsitt (P). Akers and Whitsitt were to perform their duties at the Jay Bee Manufacturing Company in Tyler, Texas. Mrs. Sedberry later purchased stock in Jay Bee owned by Jay Bee’s general manager, who was then replaced by Sorenson. Ps had difficulty working with Sorenson and Jay Bee owed large amounts of money to a bank whose officials were concerned the company would fail under Sorenson. The bank addressed its concerns to Ps, who then met with Sedberry without Sorenson’s knowledge to discuss possibilities for the refinancing of Jay Bee. As a show of good faith, Ps offered their resignations on ninety days notice; Sedberry refused. Ps returned to Jay Bee with instructions; however, the next day Mrs. Sedberry informed Ps that their resignations were accepted effective immediately. Ps sued D for breach of their employment contracts and contended that Mrs. Sedberry had refused their resignations and that no offer remained open. The trial court awarded damages......

Words: 516 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Brief Mcdonald V Chicago

...Facts: In 2007 the Supreme Court decided in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the individual citizen has the substantive right to bear arms. The case overruled a handgun ban in the Washington D.C. area and was unique as the District of Columbia is under federal jurisdiction, so the handgun ban was automatically considered a federal. However, after DC v. Heller, Chicago residents sued arguing that they the same right to own handguns for self defense, but were kept from doing so due to Chicago’s law. Chicago residents asked the court to declare Chicago’s law ban of handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s ordinance was purely local, not having the same complicating facts as Washington D.C thus the case is different in McDonald v. Chicago than it is from D.C v. Heller. Issue: Chicago’s law doesn’t totally prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued against that as the law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Then residents were permitted to buy guns from an list with approved firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. (Pg. 8) Both the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court followed previous Supreme Court precedent in saying the handgun laws of Chicago were legal. (Pg. 10) The petitioners then asked the Supreme Court to hear their case and their request was granted. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs in a 5-4 decision. The plaintiffs won......

Words: 525 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case Brief: Orlando V. Cole

...Case Brief Orlando v. Cole (2010) FACTS Joseph M. Orlando filed a complaint for slander against fellow attorney, Garrick F. Cole. Allegedly, Orlando suffered harm to his reputation as a lawyer when Cole made false comments about his role in an investigation involving a 17-year-old student and a high school basketball coach, Thomas A. Atwater. At the time, Atwater was unrepresented and approached Orlando to admit that he had in fact sexually assaulted the high school student. He signed an affidavit and confessed to the police, while Orlando spoke to the media and gave them a copy of Atwater’s affidavit. Cole, who was now representing Atwater, told the same reporters that the affidavit was “inaccurate” and Orlando’s actions were “fraudulent” and “deceitful”. ISSUE Are the comments made by Cole reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation? Are Cole’s statements ones of fact, opinion, or a combination of both? RULE “A statement is defamatory in the circumstances if it discredits a person in the minds of any considerable and respectable class of the community.” “The determination whether a statement is one of fact or opinion is generally considered a question of law” because “under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea”. APPLICATION In this case, the court concluded that the comments made by Cole are susceptible of a defamatory connotation because the terms used include “inaccurate”, “fraudulent”, and “deceitful”- which all......

Words: 344 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case Brief: Brady V. Maryland

...Case Brief Citation: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962) Procedural History This case is on appeal from an affirmed decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. It was currently on remand only for the purpose of punishment. Issue Does withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant violate that defendant’s due process rights? Under the circumstances of this case, did limitations on new proceedings as to punishment only violate defendant’s due process rights? Holding The Supreme Court held that, in general, withholding evidence favorable to the defendant as to either guilt or punishment violates a defendant’s due process rights irrespective of the intentions of prosecutors. But for the purposes of this case, no, the defendant’s due process rights were not violated when his new trial was restricted to punishment only, as the evidence in question only pertained to his relative culpability and appropriate punishment, not his underlying guilt. Facts Brady (Petitioner) and accomplice, Boblit, were both convicted in a Maryland Court of the same murder (in the first degree) but in separate trials. At trial, Brady admitted his assistance in the planning and commission of the crime, but denied having personally committed the killing. Defense counsel admitted his client’s guilt at trial, explaining to the jury that they should find him guilty but not impose the death penalty due to his lesser culpability. Brady’s attorney, prior to trial, requested access to all of the......

Words: 508 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Cary Grant V George Clooney

...Cary Grant v George Clooney Since the first studios were built and the first movies were made, the stars of Hollywood have been admired and idolized. In terms of classy sophistication, two leading men reign supreme, Cary Grant and George Clooney. This suave pair may be similar but they are two very different people.                  Cary Grant and George Clooney are compared constantly in different aspects. One of the most striking similarities between the two is their physical appearance. Both men are the epitome of tall, dark, and handsome. With year-long tans and deep brown eyes, Grant and Clooney look almost related. Another similarity between Cary Grant and George Clooney is their charismatic nature. Movie-goers have been drawn to their aura of class and suavity for decades. Additionally, Grant and Clooney never forgot the importance of charity. Both men were philanthropic and donated either time or money to a number of causes. Grant donated two salaries to two different war efforts. His salary from The Philadelphia Story went to support the British war effort and one-hundred thousand dollars from Arsenic and Old Lace went to the American war effort ("Cary Grant (I) - Biography"). Clooney has donated money to a number of different organizations and even created some of his own. His foundation, Not on Our Watch, was created to help stop the genocide in Sudan ("George Clooney"). Despite their similar looks and charm, Cary Grant and George Clooney’s careers started......

Words: 823 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Matimak Trading Co. V. Khalily

...Case: Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily 118 F. 3d 76 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1997) Facts: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), Matimak Trading Co. is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state." Procedure: United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit Issue: Can a corporation based in Hong Kong be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction? Is Matimak Trading Co. a citizen or subject of a foreign state and therefore subject to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction? Holding: (Vote: 2-1) No, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) Reasoning: (Altimari, McLaughlin, and Jacobs, Circuit Judges) A. Rule: The courts ruled Matimak Trading Co. is not a citizen or subjects of a foreign state, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and there was no other foundation for jurisdiction over Marimak Trading Co. The district court properly dismissed Matimak Training Co.’s suit for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. B. Application: The Article III constitutional grant of authority that was implemented under the Judiciary Act of 1789 used the terms “foreign” and “alien” instead of “subject” and “citizen.” Since aliens could be involved in litigation with a U.S. citizen, the Framers used this terminology to grant access to federal courts. That terminology was used to open U.S. courts to all foreigns without regard to the government they fall under. Diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a person who is “stateless” or has no......

Words: 314 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona Brief Irac

...Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations. (2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? (3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. (4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it......

Words: 295 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Feldman V Google Brief

...Feldman(F) v Google(D) Inc. (2007) United States District Court F: In Jan 2003, plaintiff (firm owner), purchased advertising from defendant’s “AdWords.” Whenever certain words would be searched on Google, plaintiff’s ad would appear and the plaintiff would be charged by each click (pay per click). The highest bidder for keyword would have ad placed at top of search page words of drugs. Allegedly, the plaintiff was the victim of cliff fraud, in which competitors or pranksters click on the ad, driving up cost to advertise, and that the defendant required him to pay for all the clicks. Plaintiff claims that there are programs to locate fraudulent clickers, not that the defendant was aware of the tick clicks. The defendant charged the plaintiff over $100,000 from January 2003-December 2005 and has moved to seek damages, relief of profits the defendant procured, and relief of money from fraud clicks. I: Is an online clickwrap contract enforceable when the agreement has to be accepted in order to initiate a contract, referring to form selection clause, and when it does not specifically define a price? H: Yes. When the party has been given reasonable notice and it is clear they must click on the agreement to move forward and when the contract defines a method to determine price then the contract is valid. R: The Court relies on the precedent of Specht v. Netscape Comms Corp., in which the court determined that “clickwrap agreements are considered to be writings because......

Words: 448 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Escola V. Coca Cola Co.

...Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno Supreme Court of California 1. Facts and procedure history Facts: • Escola (Plaintiff) was a waitress in the restaurant. • While she was moving the bottles of Coke from the cases which had been delivered to her restaurant at least 36 hours before to the refrigerator, one of them exploded in her hand, causing her to be severely injured. •The plaintiff alleged that the Coca Cola Company (Defendant) had been negligent in selling "bottles containing said beverage which on account of excessive pressure of gas or by reason of some defect in the bottle was dangerous ... and likely to explode." • Escola sued Coca Cola Bottling Co. to recover damages for personal injuries. • Judgment for plaintiff at trial • Defendant appealed 2. Issue: Is the manufacturer liable for the injuries under the inference of negligence? 3. Holding: Yes. Judgment for Plaintiff following the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor 4. Rule of law: Res ipsa loquitur does not apply unless (1) A defendant has had exclusive control of the thing causing the injury (2) The accident is of such a nature that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant. 5. Reasoning: • It doesn't matter that we can't tell precisely whether the explosion was caused by an excessive charge or a defect in the glass. The fact is neither of causes could exist so the bottle wouldn’t explode if the due care had been used. • Even though the instrument causing the...

Words: 534 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Helling V. Casey Case Brief

...Title: Helling v. Carey 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974) Procedure: The plaintiff Helling, a patient, appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeals (state of Washington) affirming the judgment of the trial court for defendant ophthalmologists in a medical malpractice action involving the ophthalmologists' failure to timely administer a glaucoma test. This case was heard in the Supreme Court in Washington state. Issue or issues: The issue was whether the ophthalmologists' compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology, that did not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age, insulated them from liability. Facts: The patient, who was 32 years of age when she was diagnosed with glaucoma, sued the ophthalmologists, alleging that she suffered severe and permanent damage to her eyes as the proximate result of the ophthalmologists' negligence in failing timely administer a pressure test for glaucoma. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the ophthalmologists. Holding: The Washington Supreme Court held, as a matter of law, that the reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple, harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that, in failing to do so, the defendants were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable. Analysis: After years of......

Words: 535 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Case Brief Levi. V. Abercrombie

...Levi Strauss & Co. V. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 633 F.3d 1158 (2011) FACTS: Levi Strauss has stitched a design on the back pockets of its jeans since 1873. Levi Strauss holds multiple federally registered trademarks on this bow-shaped design, an “Arcuate”. They are required to actively monitor competing designs and enforce its trademark rights. In 2005, Abercrombie & Fitch attempted to register a “mirror” image stitching design for use on certain products. Levi Strauss argued that this design should be barred because it could potentially cause confusion with and dilute the Levi Strauss Arcuate mark. While the ninth circuit appeal was pending, Abercrombie announced the shutdown of the Ruehl brand and the Ruehl retail stores. Abercrombie then proceeded to file a new trademark-registration application with the PTO. This time they were attempting to register the same mirror image with a different brand name, Gilley Hicks. These would be sold at different prices, and through different channels than their former Ruehl line. After this, Levi Strauss attempted to have Abercrombie agree to amend the pleadings to add Gilley Hicks, or say that any injunction occurred would extend to include the Gilley Hicks line as well; Abercrombie refused. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: On July 20, 2007, Levi Strauss sued Abercrombie in the Northern District of California after learning that Abercrombie was selling products with this mirror image on a line of jeans- the “Ruehl”. The district court held......

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Brief Smith V Stolberg

...Part 1 Smith v. Stolberg, 256 Mich. App. 231, 103 N.W. 2d 586 (1998). Facts: Stolberg pushed Smith into a bench during a court appearance. Stolberg claims Smith pushed him into the bench whereas his back hit the bench causing him to launch forward onto the floor. Smith claimed that Stolberg spit and raised his hand at him and he pushed him as self-defense. Smith filed a complaint against Stolberg for assault, battery, and negligence. The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint for negligence only. The plaintiff is essentially claiming an intentional, offensive touching. Therefore, the plaintiff’s proper cause of action is intentional tort of battery, not negligence. The trial court granted in favor of the defendant in regards to plaintiffs negligence claim. Issue: Can Smith be held liable for assault and battery since Stolberg amended his assault and battery complaint? Rule: The intention to do harm is the essence of an assault. In actions to recover assault does not apply to actions to recover for assault and battery. Battery is a general intent offense. The defendant does not need to intend specific harm, but only commit an act of unwanted contact. If the wrongdoer only intended an assault but did not intend to actually hurt the person, but yet made contact with the person, both an assault and a battery have occurred. The plaintiff does not have to prove an actual physical injury. The plaintiff only needs to prove an unlawful act, MCL 600.5805. Once there......

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Hampton V. Dagenhart Brief

...George Michael Thompson Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court of the United States, 1918 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed2d. 1101 Votes: 8-1 Majority Opinion: Justice Day Dissenting: Justice Holmes Not Participating: None Facts: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 banned the shipment of products made in factories that employed children under the age of 14 or allowed children between the ages of 14-16 to work more than eight hours a day. Roland Dagenhart an employee along with his two minor sons in a North Carolina cotton mill filed a complaint in district court seeking to enjoin the act which he viewed was unconstitutional. The district court held that it was unconstitutional, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Statue or Provision of the Constitution in question: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 Questions: 1. Is the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 unconstitutional? Holding: 1. Yes Reasoning: The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing this act as the issue of child labor was a purely local matter to which the federal government had no authority over. Commerce consists of intercourse and traffic the making or mining of goods is not commerce, and considering that the goods being shipped were of themselves harmless Congress could not clearly state they were regulating commerce when passing the act. The Court also stated that even thought it can be claimed that differing child labor laws among the states creates unfair competition...

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Eilers V Coy Brief

...Eilers v Coy Brief 1) Title and Citation: Eilers v Coy 582 F. Supp. 1093 (Minn. 1984) 2) Identity of the Parties: Plaintiff- Williams Eilers (24 year old male) a. Defendants- Plaintiff’s parents, relatives, and deprogrammers 3) Procedural History: Plaintiff accused defendants of false imprisonment and the violation of his civil rights during the attempt deprogramming. Plaintiff motioned for directed verdict. Motion for directed verdict granted. 4) Facts: Family claims in a letter dated 08/16/82 the plaintiff allegedly threatened to commit suicide. On 07/26/82 Joyce Peterson (psychiatric social worker) interviewed the plaintiff and reported to the parents of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a threat to himself or others. On Monday 08/16/82 Plaintiff and wife abducted from a clinic in Winona Minnesota by their parents to deprogram them from the religious group Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Plaintiff held against his will at Tau Center, restrained, and monitored by hired security. Instructions were given to not allow the plaintiff to leave the facility. After several days of resistance plaintiff appeared to consent. On Saturday 8/21/82 during transport to Iowa City, Iowa for further deprogramming the plaintiff escaped out the moving vehicle, and was subsequently helped by civilians who summoned police. 5) Issue: The claim of false imprisonment and violation of plaintiff’s civil rights during attempted deprogramming. Is the application...

Words: 368 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Hoover Co. V. Bissell Inc

...I. Synopsis: Case: The HOOVER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BISSELL INC., Defendant. No. 5:98-CV-1088. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 19, 1999. A. The Hoover Company History: Hoover vacuum cleaners have markets in the United States and Canada. In addition to vacuum cleaners, Hoover also produces and sells high quality washers and dryers. Maytag acquired The Hoover Company in 1989, providing Maytag an important foothold in the highly competitive international market. The company roots back to 1827, when Henry Hoover established a plant near Canton, OH. 80 years later led to him and his sons selling vacuum cleaners after purchasing rights to an electric suction sweeper, which was invented a year before by a guy named Murray Spangler. In 1908, Hoover bought Spangler’s patent, kept him as a partner and soon named the company Hoover Suction Sweeper Co. Hoover than began marketing the sweeper in stores all throughout the country. By 1921, Hoover had gone global and by 1923, sales reached $23 million. Hoover today specializes in all floor care and is a continued leader in the industry (Hoover: Fundinguniverse, 2006). B. Bissell Inc. Company History In 1876, Melville Bissell began marketing his carpet sweeper invention with revolving brushes. The revolving brushes picked up the dust and dirt and deposited it inside the sweeper housing. Being dependent on the rotation of the wheels to drive the sweeping mechanism, it only removed debris......

Words: 1456 - Pages: 6