Toussaint Law 3220 EXAM ONE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CASE: Davis v. Baugh Industrial Contractors, Inc. - correct answer ✔✔- common law
- precedent = completion and acceptance doctrine (requires work to be completed and owner
to have accepted the work)
- summary judgement
- goes to supreme court
HELD: reversed & remanded; court rejected previous common law rules and accepted a more
modern approach
CASE: Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors - correct answer ✔✔- "ethics v. law"
- Lamson fired because he didn't agree with un-ethical practices
- HELD: reversed; there was no wrongful discharge because Lamson was an at-will employee
CASE: Davis v. West - correct answer ✔✔- HRS sued Davis, but she did not respond to the
summonsed complaint so the judge entered default judgement
- trial court said summary judgement
- HELD: affirmed; no issue of fact
CASE: Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler LLC - correct answer ✔✔- wired money to pay for tons of
really cheap jeans
- sued for fraud (quality of jeans)
- default judgement (Idaho court has jurisdiction)
- defendant's actions of fraud invoked the long-arm statute
- HELD: affirmed; idaho has jurisdiction
, CASE: Barbin v AstenJohnson inc - correct answer ✔✔- moved to exclude "expert witness" bc of
"dubious credentials and his lack of expertise with regard to dryer felts and paper mills"
- judge told jury to decide if he was an expert or not (judge is suppose to decide)
- HELD: reversed + remanded; judge errored
CASE: naples v. keystone building and development corp. - correct answer ✔✔- "money
damages"
- trial court only awarded half of the money it would take to fix the damages bc "did not meet
burden of proof"
- HELD: reversed + remanded; plaintiff can only get more money though
CASE: Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc v. Cahill - correct answer ✔✔- became a senior rep at PPLSi
and had access to see the top performers, so he tried to poach them
- sign an agreement with PPLSi prohibiting the use of that info
- HELD: preliminary injunction ordered; PPLSi satisfied the 4 requirements for injunction
CASE: Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut - correct answer ✔✔- city used power of
eminent domain to buy waterfront property and sell to developers
- issue: does the city's development plan serve a "public purpose"
- HELD: supreme court held; the takings satisfy the 5th amendment requirement of "taking for a
public purpose"
CASE: Hughes v. Oklahoma - correct answer ✔✔- took minnows out of Oklahoma (against state
law)
- HELD: supreme court reversed; state law in conflict with interstate commerce (law should be
less discriminatory to states)
CASE: Marshall v. Barlow - correct answer ✔✔- OSHA inspector asks to search work areas &
Barlow refused admission w/ out a warrant
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CASE: Davis v. Baugh Industrial Contractors, Inc. - correct answer ✔✔- common law
- precedent = completion and acceptance doctrine (requires work to be completed and owner
to have accepted the work)
- summary judgement
- goes to supreme court
HELD: reversed & remanded; court rejected previous common law rules and accepted a more
modern approach
CASE: Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors - correct answer ✔✔- "ethics v. law"
- Lamson fired because he didn't agree with un-ethical practices
- HELD: reversed; there was no wrongful discharge because Lamson was an at-will employee
CASE: Davis v. West - correct answer ✔✔- HRS sued Davis, but she did not respond to the
summonsed complaint so the judge entered default judgement
- trial court said summary judgement
- HELD: affirmed; no issue of fact
CASE: Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler LLC - correct answer ✔✔- wired money to pay for tons of
really cheap jeans
- sued for fraud (quality of jeans)
- default judgement (Idaho court has jurisdiction)
- defendant's actions of fraud invoked the long-arm statute
- HELD: affirmed; idaho has jurisdiction
, CASE: Barbin v AstenJohnson inc - correct answer ✔✔- moved to exclude "expert witness" bc of
"dubious credentials and his lack of expertise with regard to dryer felts and paper mills"
- judge told jury to decide if he was an expert or not (judge is suppose to decide)
- HELD: reversed + remanded; judge errored
CASE: naples v. keystone building and development corp. - correct answer ✔✔- "money
damages"
- trial court only awarded half of the money it would take to fix the damages bc "did not meet
burden of proof"
- HELD: reversed + remanded; plaintiff can only get more money though
CASE: Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc v. Cahill - correct answer ✔✔- became a senior rep at PPLSi
and had access to see the top performers, so he tried to poach them
- sign an agreement with PPLSi prohibiting the use of that info
- HELD: preliminary injunction ordered; PPLSi satisfied the 4 requirements for injunction
CASE: Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut - correct answer ✔✔- city used power of
eminent domain to buy waterfront property and sell to developers
- issue: does the city's development plan serve a "public purpose"
- HELD: supreme court held; the takings satisfy the 5th amendment requirement of "taking for a
public purpose"
CASE: Hughes v. Oklahoma - correct answer ✔✔- took minnows out of Oklahoma (against state
law)
- HELD: supreme court reversed; state law in conflict with interstate commerce (law should be
less discriminatory to states)
CASE: Marshall v. Barlow - correct answer ✔✔- OSHA inspector asks to search work areas &
Barlow refused admission w/ out a warrant
