Longhorn Industries Inc. V. Widget Corporation Case Summary
MBA625_FINAL PROJECT 1 November, 2015 Internal Analysis: Longhorn Industries, Inc. v. Widget Corporation Widget Corporation has recently received a summons for a suit brought by a customer in Texas. While seeking legal counsel, an internal analysis was conducted to better understand the potential legal issues with this case. This report provides that analysis, looking at the procedural and substantive aspects of this suit. Background Widget Corporation Located in California, Widget Corporation (“Widget”) is incorporated in Delaware, a state where more than half the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated. (Top 5 Reason to Incorporate in Delaware, 2007) This is common for companies to incorporate in a state other than where they are headquartered, …show more content…
The long-arm statute, which applies in diversity of citizenship cases, is used to determine state jurisdiction. Each state and the District of Columbia have enacted their own long-arm statutes. Generally, to apply the long-arm statute the defendant need only have minimum contact with the plaintiff’s state, as determined by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. 326 U.S. 310 (1945). (The Gale Group, Inc., 2008) Texas statute provides that a non-resident that “performs the contract in whole or in part in this state” (§17.042(2)) is subject to Texas’ long-arm statute and has to answer to a lawsuit there. With all of this said, Widget most likely does not have grounds for a challenge to have the case heard in a state where Widget either does business or is incorporated. However, challenges to International Shoe are becoming commonplace in a world that has evolved since 1945, especially with the advent of the internet. Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com. 952 PA 1119. (W.D. Pa. 1997) showed that the courts are at least considering these challenges. (The Gale Group, Inc., 2008) Though this may allow for the potential for Widget to challenge on the jurisdictional grounds of non-residency, it would be a long shot and is not a recommended course of
Supreme Court Case Brief: Washington V. Glucksberg
726 Words | 3 Pages1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.
Case: Lachance Vs Erickson
184 Words | 1 PagesName of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
What Is The Court Case Techcorward Inc. V. Best Buy
499 Words | 2 PagesTechForward Inc. v. Best Buy Co Inc. is a federal court case centering on the allegation that Best Buy unlawfully formed its buyback program after TechForward created its own promise to customers regarding a buyback plan and embezzled TechForward’s trade secrets to do so. Within the buyback program, customers are able to trade in electronic devices they purchased in return for store credit and are also allowed to choose their set pricing for in store credit. Best Buy was having trouble creating their own buyback program and sought for help through a California based start-up company, TechForward Inc. The two companies had signed a confidential and concealed agreement in February of 2008.
GERARD Warris Case Study
1208 Words | 5 PagesGERARD WARRENS willfully and with full intent and knowledge made untrue statements of material facts by stating that (1) HOOPER would receive registered stock representing an equity interest in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (2) Warrens would make financial disclosures indicating the financial status of STEALTH SOFTWARE LLC; (3) Warrens could rely on Defendants ' statement that STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC was solvent; (4) Hooper would receive the corporate records and balance sheets from Warren; (5) Warrens would disclose various contracts and other prospective customer deals that had concluded or falsely stated they were concluded; (6) HOOPER would recceive all of the arrears in wages after he made an investment in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (7)Warrens would dislose at a later date the Board members, officers, owners, shareholders, and managers of all the non-resident codefendents; (8) Warrens had top security clearance but would not divulge what kind; (9) Warrens had invested milions of dollars in the LLC; (10) Warrens had consummated contracts with a number of potental customers which were not true; and (11) that STEALTH had employees other than
Goldberg And Wheeler Court Case Summary
331 Words | 2 PagesThe court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
What Is The Supreme Court Case Of Eisenstadt V. Baird
148 Words | 1 PagesIn 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan.
Case Study: Burwell V. Hobby
1454 Words | 6 PagesBusiness Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Tax Advantages For Companies In Delaware
143 Words | 1 PagesDelaware is considered to have one of the most flexible laws to form a company. Even if you are not a Delaware resident, you can hire an agent in Delaware for certain fees which will represent your company in case you get sued. Also, Delaware has more number of permitted corporate indictors than any other states. These permitted corporate indictors are: Association, Club, Company, Corporation, Foundation, Fund, Incorporated, Institute, Limited, Society, Syndicate, Union, and any of these abbreviations: Co., Corp., Inc., or Ltd. Delaware offers legal and tax advantages for companies registered in their state.
R. Williams Construction Co. V. OSHRC: Case Study
736 Words | 3 PagesLuigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law December 2, 2015 Week 6 Case Study: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? R. Williams Construction Company petitions for review of a final order of the OSHRC for violations of the OSHA Act.
The Witters Case: Lemon V. Kurtzman
227 Words | 1 PagesAfter listening to the oral arguments and reading the opinion of the court, I believe I have completed the second part of my analysis for the Witters case. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Mr. witters in a 9-0 majority. The Court ruled that the lemon test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman was applicable in this case, and that aid to Witters would meet the standards set in the lemon test. The Court ruled that the primary effect of the statute was an effect on Witters, not religion. Where the aid money would be spent the court noted was made solely by the individual, therefore the Court ruled that the state of Washingtons ' statute had no excessive entanglement with religion.
Texas Supreme Court Case Study
900 Words | 4 Pages[Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 235 S.W. 513
Toops V. Case Brief
718 Words | 3 PagesFacts In the late evening hours of October 30, 1992, Terry Toops, Warren Cripe, and Ed Raisor were at Toops’s home in Logansport, Indiana, drinking beer. Around 3:00 a.m. the following morning the trio decided to drive to a store in town. Because he was intoxicated, Toops agreed to allow Cripe to drive Toops’s car.
Texas Vs Johnson Case Summary
640 Words | 3 PagesThe Texas versus Johnson case is a case where the state of Texas is arguing that Johnson should be charged and reconvicted. Johnson was a criminal, and he was wrong in his actions. Texas understands that, and they are going to argue the side of justice. Johnson should’ve turned himself over while he had the chance, but he decided to fight his side of the case. He has those rights.
Summary Of The Court Case Of Gold Kist Inc.
534 Words | 3 PagesThe plaintiff in this case is Douglas Faulk and the defendant is Gold Kist, Inc. The plaintiff, Douglas Faulk owned a pond in which he had stocked approximately 2000 catfish. The pond was supplied by rainwater and runoff from the adjacent land, which included land that Gold Kist, Inc. operated a fertilizer plant on. After realizing a thick layer of scum had filled his pond, and that all of his catfish had died, Faulk sued Gold Kist, Inc. claiming they had committed an alleged trespass to his property, with regard to runoff fertilizer from their bulk plant, which he claims to have created the layer of scum on his pond, and killed all of his fish.
Gratwick V. Johnson Case Analysis
1665 Words | 7 PagesIn 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
More about Longhorn Industries Inc. V. Widget Corporation Case Summary
Supreme Court Case Brief: Washington V. Glucksberg
726 Words | 3 PagesCase: Lachance Vs Erickson
184 Words | 1 PagesWhat Is The Court Case Techcorward Inc. V. Best Buy
499 Words | 2 PagesGERARD Warris Case Study
1208 Words | 5 PagesGoldberg And Wheeler Court Case Summary
331 Words | 2 PagesWhat Is The Supreme Court Case Of Eisenstadt V. Baird
148 Words | 1 PagesCase Study: Burwell V. Hobby
1454 Words | 6 PagesTax Advantages For Companies In Delaware
143 Words | 1 PagesR. Williams Construction Co. V. OSHRC: Case Study
736 Words | 3 PagesThe Witters Case: Lemon V. Kurtzman
227 Words | 1 PagesTexas Supreme Court Case Study
900 Words | 4 PagesToops V. Case Brief
718 Words | 3 PagesTexas Vs Johnson Case Summary
640 Words | 3 PagesSummary Of The Court Case Of Gold Kist Inc.
534 Words | 3 PagesGratwick V. Johnson Case Analysis
1665 Words | 7 Pages