Troy University LAW 2221 blaw premidterm cases

Troy University LAW 2221 blaw premidterm casesBLAW CASE REVIEW Table of Contents 1. Trombetta v. Conkling p. 3 2. State v. Blowers p. 3 3. Gallagher v. St. Raymond’s Roman Catholic Church p. 4 4. Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. p. 5 5. The Cetacean Community v. Bush p. 6 6. Huggins v. Citibank, N.A. p. 6 7. K.M. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. p. 7 8. Soto v. New York City Transit Authority p. 7 9. Cole v. Hubanks p. 8 10. White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp p. 9 11. Martin Delicatessen v. Schumacher p. 9 12. M.A. Mortenson Co., Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp p. 10 13. i.LAN Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp p. 11 14. Stambovsky v. Ackley p. 12 15. Cheek v. United Healthcare, Inc. p. 12 16. Diosdado v. Diosdado p. 13 17. Manning v. Brannon p. 14 18. Shields v. Gross p. 14 19. Blatt v. Manhattan Medical Group, Inc. p. 15 20. Heinrich v. Martin – Jason Battle p. 15 21. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.- D and W p. 15 22. Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v. Interstate Wrecking Co. p. 16 23. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc. p. 16 24. Missouri Public Service Co. v. Peabody Coal Co. p. 17 25. JMD Holding Co. v. Congress Financial Corp. p. 17 26. Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S&M Enterprises p. 18 27. Ryan v. Friesenhahn p. 18 28. Ram Products Co., Inc. v. Chauncey p. 19 29. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson p. 20 30. Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Corp. p. 20 31. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Saint Clair Adams p. 21 32. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell p. 22 33. Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. p. 22 34. Frank B. Hall & Co., Inch. v. Buck p. 23 35. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. p. 24 36. Soldano v. O’Daniels p. 24 37. Love v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. p. 25 38. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. p. 25 39. Dukat v. Leiserv, Inc. p. 26 40. Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp p. 27 41. Fox v. Mountain West Electric, Inc. p. 27 42. Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School p. 28 43. Gorham v. Benson Optical p. 28 44. Catamount Slate Products, Inc. v. Sheldon p. 29 1 45. Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. p. 30 46. Newman v. Schiff p. 31 47. Osprey, L.L.C. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Inc. p. 31 48. Berardi v. Meadowbrook Mall Company p. 32 49. Rea v. Paulson p. 32 50. Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc. p. 33 51. Reed v. King p. 34 52. Lesher v. Strid p. 34 53. Pearsall v. Alexander p. 34 54. Denney v. Reppert p. 35 55. New England Rock Services, Inc. v. Empire Paving, Inc. p. 35 56. DiLorenzo v. Valve and Primer Corporation p. 36 57. Pacific Custom Pools, Inc. v. Turner Construction Company p. 36 58. Earthweb, Inc. v. Schlack p. 36 59. Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc. p. 37 60. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. p. 38 61. Dodson v. Shrader p. 38 62. In re The Score Board, Inc. p. 39 63. Zelnick v. Adams p. 40 64. First State Bank of Sinai v. Hyland p. 40 65. Carter v. Allstate Insurance Company p. 41 66. Iacono v. Lyons p. 41 67. Kalas v. Cook p. 42 68. Estate of Jackson v. Devenyns p. 43 69. Leitz v. Thorson p. 44 70. Reiser v. Dayton Country Club Company p. 44 71. Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Inc. p. 45 72. Macke Company v. Pizza of Gaithersburg, Inc. p. 46 73. Stine v. Stewart p. 46 74. Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc. p. 47 75. Associated Builders, Inc. v. Williams M. Coggins et al. p. 48 76. Hochster v. De La Tour p. 49 77. Northern Corp v. Chugach Electrical Association p. 49 78. Merritt v. Craig p. 50 79. Westhaven Associates, LTD. v. C.C. of Madison, Inc. p. 51 80. Schonfeld v. Hilliard p. 51 81. Tamarind Lithography Workshop v. Sanders p. 52 82. Madison Square Garden Corp., Ill. v. Carnera p. 53 83. Wilson v. Scampoli p. 53 84. Furlong v. Alpha Chi Omega Sorority p. 53 85. In re Stem p. 54 86. Donald R. Hessler v. Crystal Lake Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. p. 56 87. Kenco Homes, Inc. v. Williams p. 57 88. Bigelow-Sanford, Inc. v. Gunny Corp p. 58 89. Coastal Leasing Corporation v. T-Bar S Corporation p. 58 90. Boc Group, Inc. v. Chevron Chemical Company, LCC p. 58 2 1. Trombetta v. Conkling Facts Darlene Trombetta and aunt, Phyllis Fisher, were crossing the street. Trombetta watched as her aunt was killed when run over by truck. Plaintiff claimed negligent infliction of emotional distress against defendants Fred J. Conkling and Universal Waste, Inc, the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Issue Should the niece be able to bring case of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress given that she was in the zone of danger—is she ‘immediate family’? Holding No, Darlene Trombetta cannot be considered immediate family and thus cannot make a claim for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Reasoning Trombetta testified that she and her aunt shared a close relationship as her mother died when she was young and her aunt assumed the maternal role. Although the Supreme Court held that the intimate familial relationship in Trombetta’s case was enough to be considered ‘immediate family’ (Bovsun v. Sanperi left the issue of the outer limits of ‘immediate family’ open), the Appellate Division reversed the decision claiming that potential plaintiffs may take advantage of the open definition of ‘immediate family’ and claim negligent infliction of emotional distress when such a strong bond may not exist. It is difficult to prove the validity and strength of relationships. If Trombetta were able to state cause of action, the court would leave the door open for fictitious claims. Analysis The events of the accident could have inflicted emotional distress upon Darlene Trombetta as she did claim a close relationship with her aunt. The courts did reach an agreeable conclusion, as an expansion of the definition of ‘immediate family’ would have left the door open for extensive interpretation. This would inevitably lead to fictitious claims. Although it is disheartening to see considerable emotional distress from the plaintiff, the possible consequences of a decision to expand the definition of ‘immediate family’ were too large. The Appellate Division was right to follow precedence and consider only children, parents and siblings as ‘immediate family.’ The courts must not create space for future manipulation. As stated in Tobin v. Grossman, although it seems there should be a remedy for every wrong, there should exist a limit as every decision carries ramifying consequences. The potential for unwarranted claims in the future is far too great to be ignored. Additionally, the courts should possess some predictability; they should, however, make sure the quest for consistency is not clouding their judgment. Had Trombetta been injured as well, the outcome of this trial would have differed as the issue at hand would change. 2. State v. Blowers Facts Schofield and Blowers drank beer. They rode horses with Schofield’s sister riding on Blower’s horse behind him. Schofield’s sister fell from horse and suffered severe concussion. Schofield was charged and convicted of driving a vehicle while under influence of alcohol Issue Should a riding a horse be considered operating a vehicle (crime involves operating a vehicle