Brief Case: MDM Group Assciates, Inc. Vs. CX Reinsurance Company. 165 P. 3d 882 (Colb.Ct.App.2007)
- Held: CX reinsurance Company
- Relevant law: A principal is not a fiduciary for an agent and owes the agent no loyalty.
- Apply the facts: In this case CX was the principal and MDM was the agent. As the principal CX owed MDM no good faith
Brief Case: Sanders vs. Madison Square Garden 2007 U.S District LEXIS 48126 (SDNY 2007)
- Held: MSG motion to amend it's answer was denied (sander's won)
- Relevant Law: Under the fiduciary duty of loyalty the agent must act in a single minded pursuit to serve the best interest of his principal.
- Apply the facts: In this case MSF can not prove that Sander's actions related to the performance of her duties or if her tax fraud effected the company in any way.
Brief Case: Opp vs. Wheaton Van lines Inc. 231 F. 3d 1060 (7th cir. 2000)
- Held: Opp
- Relevant Law: If an agent, acting on behalf of his principal, makes a contract with a third party, and there is a breach of contract and the third party sues the principal for breach of contract, the principal's liable if the agent had express, implied or apparent authority to make the contract.
- Apply the facts: No authority of any kind was granted to Mr.Opp. He had no right to act as an agent for Mrs. Opp.
Brief Case: Eisenberg vs. Advance Relocation and Storage Inc. 237 F. 39 111(2d. Circ. 2000)
- Held: Eisenberg
- Relevant Law: The more control an employer has over an agent, the more likely the agent is an employee, rather than an independent contractor.
- Apply the facts:Advance exerted a lot of control over Eisenberg. Controlling where and when she worked. She was being directed by advance representatives when they were on site just like any other of the employees.
Brief Case: Millan vs. Dean Writter Reynolds 90 S.W 3d. 760 (Tex. Ct. App 2002)
- Held:Dean Writer Reynolds
- Relevant Law: Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior an employer is responsible for the wrongful acts of employees committed within the scope of their employment. One test for "Scope of employment" is the work related limits of time and place test.
- Apply the facts: Miguel was not acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the criminal acts.
Boyle vs. United States 129 S.Ct 2237 (U.S Supreme Ct 2009)
- Held:United States
- Relevant Law: Under RICO it is a federal crime for any person to use income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in an enterprise.
- Apply the facts: Boyle was apart of an enterprise whether the members constantly changes is irrelevant. So the lower court decision that found him guilty under RICO was affirmed by the supreme court.
Kentucky vs. King 2al U.S LEXIS 3541 (U.S Sup. Ct. 2011)
- Held: Kentucky
- Relevant Law: The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant.
- Apply the facts:The police had reasonable cause toe enter the apartment. Not only did they give proper warning to the occupants when they initially entered the apartment there was evidence of drugs laying out in the open giving them probable cause to search the place.
Pope vs. Rostraver Shop and Save 2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 31690 (W.D.Pa 2008)
- Held: Rostraver Shop and Save
- Relevant Law: A merchant or merchant's employee who has probable cause to believe that retail theft has occurred or is occurring on or about a store or other retail mercantile establishment and who has probable cause to believe that a person has a committed or is committing the retail theft may detain the suspect in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time.
- Apply the facts: Pope was held for a reasonable amount of time also had the option to leave. No force was used in her detainment. Finally the merchant had probable cause based on Pope's actions to assume she was shoplifting.
Stephens vs. Pillen 681 N.W. 2d 59 (NED.App. 2004)
- Held: Stephens (no monetary funds awarded)
- Relevant Law: Nuisance is a non-trespassory invasion of another's interest, in the private use and enjoyment of one's land.
- Apply the facts: Stephan's hog operation emitted an odor and also had excessive noise that disturbed his neighbors way of life.
Black vs. Williams Insulation Co.
- Held: Williams Insulation Co.
- Relevant Law: Negligence is failure to exercise the same degree of care and skill an ordinary person would under the same circumstances and conditions.
- Apply the facts: Williams Insulation had already set in place a procedure to keep employees from driving home after a 10 hr shift. They had no control over their employee opting out of staying at a local hotel and not getting the appropriate amount of sleep.
Rule of Law:Crime: Forgery
The false making of a document.
Rule of Law:Crime:Larceny
Stealing the personal property of another.
Rule of Law:Crime:Theft of services
Rule of Law:Crime:Embezzlement
Stealing money entrusted to you.
Rule of Law:Crime:Extortion
Unlawful obtaining money from another.
Rule of law:Crime:Vandelism
Willful and malicious destruction of the property of others.
Rule of law:Crime: Bribary
Offering or receiving something of value to influence a person in the performance of an official duty.
Rule of law:Crime: R.I.C.O
Under the RICO it is a federal crime for any person to use income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in a enterprise.
Rule of Law: Intentional Torts: Battery
A battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another without consent.
Rule of law: Intentional Torts: Assualt
Is placing a person in immediate apprehension of one's physical safety.
Rule of Law:Intentional Torts: Assault/Battery Defenses
- 1. Self defense is defending yourself and a third party using only enough force that is necessary.
- 2. Discipline is a parent using enough force that is reasonable and necessary.
Rule of Law: Intentional Torts: False Imprisonment:Defense
- False imprisonment is the intentional confinement of another person for an appreciable time without consent.
- Defense: Consent
Rule of law:Intentional Torts: Defamation of Character
Defamation of character is publication of a false statement about a person that brings one into hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Rule of Law: Intentional Torts: Defamation of Character: Defense.
- 1.)The truth
- 2.)Must be communicated to a third party.
- 3.).Absolute Privilege like a judge during a court session.
- 4.) Conditional Privilege which means that whatever is said must be said in good faith with no reckless regard for the truth.
Rule of Law: Intentional Torts: Invasion of the right to privacy
The invasion to the right to privacy is the publication of facts concerning the private life of another that are highly offensive and not of legitimate concern to the public. One exception is people who are already in the public eye.
Rule of Law: Intentional Tort: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as a atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community
Rule of Law:Intentional Tort: Fraud
- In order to prove fraud a plaintiff must show:
- 1) Misrepresentation of a material existing fact.
- 2) Knowingly Made
- 3) Intent the other person rely on the statement.
- 4) Reliance
- 5) damages
Rule of Law: Intentional Tort: Trespass
Trespass to land is any unauthorized or unprivileged intentional intrusion of another real property or causing an object or other thing to enter the land.
Rule of Law:Intentional Tort: Conversion
conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over the plaintiffs personal property without consent.
Rule of Law: Intentional Tort: Nuisance
Nuisance is a non trespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of one's land.
Rule of Law:Negligence
Negligence is failure to exercise the same degree of care and skill an ordinary person would under the circumstances and conditions.
Rule of law: Negligence:Defenses
- 1) Injuries were not directly caused.
- 2) Assumption of the risk- plaintiff consents to a known danger.
- 3)Comparative negligence: The plaintiff recovers the percentage of his injuries that he was not negligent for.
A fiduciary is someone who holds the position of trust and confidence.
Rule of Law: Fiduciary Duties: Loyalty
Under the Fiduciary duty of loyalty the agent must act in a single minded pursuit to serve the best interest of the principal.
Rule of Law: Fiduciary Duties: Obey Instructions
Under the fiduciary duty to obey instructions, the agent must obey the principal's reasonable instructions for carrying out the agency business.
Rule of Law: Fiduciary Duty: Act with care and skill
Under the fiduciary duty to act with care and skill. The agent must act with the care and skill normally exercised by agents in similar circumstances.
Rule of Law: Fiduciary Duties: Notify
Under the fiduciary duty to notify the agent must notify the principal of all reasonably related to the agency business.
Rule of Law:Fiduciary Duties: Account
Under the fiduciary duty to account, the agency must account for all money or property received in the course of the agency business.
Rule of Law: Agent Authority
If an agent, acting on behalf of his principal, makes a contract with a third party, and there is breach of contract, the third party can collect damages from the principal if there was express authority, implied authority, apparent authority or ratification.
Rule of Law :Agent Authority: Express Authority
Express Authority is created by the principals direct words to the agent, either orally or in writing.
Rule of Law :Agent Authority: Implied Authority
Implied authority includes those acts reasonably necessary to accomplish the objectives of the agency.
Rule of Law :Agent Authority: Apparent Authority
Apparent authority arises when the principal's conduct causes the third party to reasonably believe the agent had authority to make the contract.
Rule of Law :Agent Authority: Ratification
Ratification is a process whereby the principal binds itself to an unauthorized act done by the agent.
Rule of Law: Principal Situations
If an agent, acting on behalf of his principal, makes a contract with a third party, and there is breach of contract then the third party can collect damages from the agent unless the agent created a fully disclosed principal situation.