Stark ex rel Jacobsen vs Ford Motor Co Case Study Analysis

Question Description

Hi,

I have 3 cases of Business Law, and i need some one who can summary of them.

But should following the Brief Format and i will post it with the cases.

FOLLOWING BRIEF FORMAT.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

BRIEF FORMAT Your name: Date: NAME OF CASE: Facts: Relevant facts of case. This section should be between 5 and 7 sentences. Issue: The question presented by the case. Holding: For which party did the court rule? Rule of Law: One sentence that states the general principle of law, i.e., “Accountants are not liable to third parties if they were unaware of the existence of a business relationship.” OR “The police are prohibited from conducting warrantless searches of your home.” The Rule of Law should not be phrased in terms of the parties to a particular case. Incorrect: “The South Orange Police had no right to search Mark Smith’s home for drugs, therefore, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Smith.” This type of statement is appropriate for the “Holding” section of the Brief. Reasoning: From where did the court derive its reasoning? Another case? The U.S. Constitution? This section should be between 3 and 5 sentences. BRIEFS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE DATE ASSIGNED FOR COMPLETION. GENERALLY, THEY SHOULD BE ONE, TYPE-WRITTEN PAGE. Paraphrase and condense the cases in your own style. Spelling and grammar count. Any deviation from the above format results in a lower grade. Please, proofread your work! Very important! Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, which would be granted. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1254(2). KeyCite Yellow Flag – Negative Treatment Disagreement Recognized by TXU Energy Retail Co., LP v. Emanuel Medical Center, Inc., N.D.Tex., May 28, 2003 105 S.Ct. 2174 Supreme Court of the United States 3 Cases that cite this headnote [2] BURGER KING CORPORATION, Appellant v. Parties cannot stipulate to a particular construction of state law, and thereby obtain jurisdiction over appeal to Supreme Court, where state law might, in fact, be in harmony with the Federal Constitution; Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is properly invoked only where a Court of Appeals has squarely held that the statute is unconstitutional on its face or as applied and jurisdiction does not lie if the decision might rest on other grounds. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1254(2). John RUDZEWICZ. No. 83–2097. | Argued Jan. 8, 1985. | Decided May 20, 1985. Franchisor brought action against franchisee alleging breach of franchise obligations and trademark infringement. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered judgment in favor of franchisor and franchisee appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 724 F.2d 1505,reversed and denied rehearing, 729 F.2d 1468. The Supreme Court, Justice Brennan, held that: (1) where it was not clear that Court of Appeals had found Florida long-arm statute unconstitutional as applied, Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over appeal; (2) jurisdictional statement would be treated as petition for writ of certiorari; and (3) exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over Michigan franchisee in Florida did not offend due process. Federal Courts Particular Cases, Contexts, and Questions 16 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Constitutional Law Non-residents in general Due process clause protects an individual’s liberty in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations; although the protection operates to restrict state power, it is ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by the due process clause rather than a function of federalism concern. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Reversed and remanded. Justice Stevens dissented and filed an opinion in which Justice White joined. 494 Cases that cite this headnote West Headnotes (27) [1] Federal Courts Proceedings to Obtain Review Where it was unclear whether Court of Appeals actually held statute unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances of the case, jurisdiction did not properly lie in the Supreme Court by appeal and appeal would be dismissed, with the jurisdictional statement [4] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment Federal Courts Related contacts and activities; specific jurisdiction Where forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there, fair-warning requirement is satisfied if the © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residence of the forum and the litigation results from injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. forum for redressing injuries inflicted by outof-state actors and, where those individuals purposefully derive benefit from their interstate activities, it may be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other states for the consequences that arise proximately from such activities and, for those reasons, forum may legitimately exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who purposefully directs activities toward forum residents. 2724 Cases that cite this headnote [5] Constitutional Law Consent; forum-selection clauses Contracts Agreement as to place of bringing suit; forum selection clauses Where forum selection provisions have been obtained through freely negotiated agreements and are not unreasonable and unjust, their enforcement does not offend due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 1069 Cases that cite this headnote [9] Constitutional touchstone in long-arm jurisdiction cases is whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum state. 273 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Federal Courts Manufacture, Distribution, and Sale of Products Publisher who distributes magazines in a distant state may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting therefrom an allegedly defamatory story. 2931 Cases that cite this headnote [10] Foreseeability of causing injury in another state is not a sufficient benchmark for exercising personal jurisdiction; foreseeability which is critical to due process analysis is that the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Federal Courts Unrelated contacts and activities; general jurisdiction Parties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other state for the consequences of their activities. 339 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment State generally has a manifest interest in providing its residents with a convenient Constitutional Law Non-residents in general Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment 11 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment 998 Cases that cite this headnote [11] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment Purposeful availment requirement for longarm jurisdiction insures that defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as the result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 contacts or the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Once it has been decided that a defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, the contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. 3246 Cases that cite this headnote [12] Federal Courts Nature, number, frequency, and extent of contacts and activities Jurisdiction is proper where the contacts of the defendant proximately result from actions by the defendant himself which create a substantial connection with the forum. 4262 Cases that cite this headnote [17] Where defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable. 721 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Federal Courts Nature, number, frequency, and extent of contacts and activities So long as it creates a substantial connection with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction. 1487 Cases that cite this headnote [18] 242 Cases that cite this headnote [14] 127 Cases that cite this headnote [19] 765 Cases that cite this headnote [15] So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are purposefully directed toward residents of another state, absence of physical contacts cannot defeat personal jurisdiction there. [16] Constitutional Law Non-residents in general Federal Courts Nature, number, frequency, and extent of contacts and activities Individual’s contact with an out-of-state party cannot alone automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum to permit exercise of jurisdiction in that forum. Federal Courts Commercial Contacts and Activities; Contracts and Transactions 287 Cases that cite this headnote Courts Construction and application of particular rules Jurisdictional rules may not be employed in such a way as to make litigation so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent. Federal Courts Business contacts and activities; transacting or doing business When defendant has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in a forum, jurisdiction cannot be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state. Federal Courts Weight and sufficiency 370 Cases that cite this headnote [20] Federal Courts Contract disputes Parties’ negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 dealing, must be evaluated in determining whether the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum. the country; absent compelling consideration, defendant who has purposefully derived commercial benefit from his affiliations in a forum may not defeat jurisdiction there simply because of his adversary’s greater net wealth. 2687 Cases that cite this headnote [21] 563 Cases that cite this headnote Federal Courts Investment, finance, and credit Michigan franchisee who deliberately reached out beyond his state of residence and negotiated with a Florida franchisor for purchase of a long-term franchise and the manifold benefits that would derive from affiliation with the nationwide organization, who entered into a carefully structured 20year relationship which envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts with Florida, who accepted regulation of his business from the Miami headquarters of the franchisor, and who was required to make monthly payments to the franchisor in Miami was constitutionally subject to long-arm jurisdiction in Florida in dispute arising out of the franchise arrangement. West’s F.S.A. § 48.193(1)(g); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. [24] Federal Courts In general; convenience, fairness, and interest of justice To the extent that it is inconvenient for a party who has minimum contacts with a forum to litigate there, the considerations can be accommodated through change of venue, rather than denial of jurisdiction. 8 Cases that cite this headnote [25] Federal Courts Particular Contexts and Causes of Action Inconvenience which Michigan franchisee would suffer from litigating franchise dispute in Florida was not so substantial as to render it unconstitutional to subject him to jurisdiction in Florida. 499 Cases that cite this headnote 32 Cases that cite this headnote [22] Federal Courts Contract disputes Although choice-of-law provision on a contract, standing alone, would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction in forum whose law is to apply, choice-of-law provision should not be ignored in considering whether defendant has purposefully invoked the benefits and protections of a state’s law. [26] Evidence sustained trial court’s finding that franchisee was not the victim of misrepresentation, fraud, or duress in connection with franchise agreement rendering it unconstitutional to subject him to jurisdiction in franchisor’s state of residence. 142 Cases that cite this headnote [23] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment State of residence of nationwide franchisor had more than a negligible interest in providing a convenient forum, notwithstanding the franchisor’s size and ability to conduct litigation anywhere in Federal Courts Weight and sufficiency 24 Cases that cite this headnote [27] Federal Courts Purpose, intent, and foreseeability; purposeful availment Quality and nature of an interstate transaction may sometimes be so random, fortuitous, or attenuated that it cannot fairly be said that the potential defendant should reasonably © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 anticipate being haled into court in another jurisdiction. 2085 Cases that cite this headnote **2176 Syllabus * Appellant is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are in Miami. It conducts most of its restaurant business through a franchise operation, under which franchisees are licensed to use appellant’s trademarks and service marks in leased standardized restaurant facilities for a period of 20 years. The governing contracts provide that the franchise relationship is established in Miami and governed by Florida law, and call for payment of all required monthly fees and forwarding of all relevant notices to the Miami headquarters. The Miami headquarters sets policy and works directly with the franchisees in attempting to resolve major problems. Dayto-day monitoring of franchisees, however, is conducted through district offices that in turn report to the Miami headquarters. Appellee is a Michigan resident who, along with another Michigan resident, entered into a 20-year franchise contract with appellant to operate a restaurant in Michigan. Subsequently, when the restaurant’s patronage declined, the franchisees fell behind in their monthly payments. After extended negotiations among the franchisees, the Michigan district office, and the Miami headquarters proved unsuccessful in solving **2177 the problem, headquarters terminated the franchise and ordered the franchisees to vacate the premises. They refused and continued to operate the restaurant. Appellant then brought a diversity action in Federal District Court in Florida, alleging that the franchisees had breached their franchise obligations and requesting damages and injunctive relief. The franchisees claimed that, because they were Michigan residents and because appellant’s claim did not “arise” within Florida, the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. But the court held that the franchisees were subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute, which extends jurisdiction to any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of the State, who breaches a contract in the State by failing to perform acts that the contract requires to be performed there. Thereafter, the court entered judgment against the franchisees on the merits. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “[j]urisdiction under these circumstances would offend the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due process.” Held: The District Court’s exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 2181–2190. *463 (a) A forum may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant where an alleged injury arises out of or relates to actions by the defendant himself that are purposefully directed toward forum residents, and where jurisdiction would not otherwise offend “fair play and substantial justice.” Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum. Pp. 2181–2185. (b) An individual’s contract with an out-of-state party cannot alone automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum. Instead, the prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing, must be evaluated to determine whether a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum. Pp. 2185–2186. (c) Here, appellee established a substantial and continuing relationship with appellant’s Miami headquarters, and received fair notice from the contract documents and the course of dealings that he might be subject to suit in Florida. The District Court found that appellee is an “experienced and sophisticated” businessman who did not act under economic duress or disadvantage imposed by appellant, and appellee has pointed to no other factors that would establish the unconstitutionality of Florida’s assertion of jurisdiction. Pp. 2186–2190. 724 F.2d 1505 (CA11 1984), reversed and remanded. Attorneys and Law Firms Joel S. Perwin argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant. Thomas H. Oehmke argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541 Opinion Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The State of Florida’s long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to “[a]ny person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state,” who, inter alia, “[b]reach [es] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state,” so long as the cause of action *464 arises from the alleged contractual breach. Fla.Stat. § 48.193(1) (g) (Supp.1984). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, sitting in diversity, relied on this provision in exercising personal jurisdiction over a Michigan resident who allegedly had breached a franchise agreement with a Florida corporation by failing to make required payments in Florida. The question presented is whether this exercise of long-arm jurisdiction offended “traditional conception[s] of fair play and substantial justice” embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. International Shoe Co. v. **2178 Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). I A Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are in Miami. It is one of the world’s largest restaurant organizations, with over 3,000 outlets in the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 8 foreign nations. Burger King conducts approximately 80% of its business through a franchise operation that the company styles the “Burger King System”—“a comprehensive restaurant format and operating system for the sale of uniform and quality food products.” App. 46. 1 Burger King licenses its franchisees to use its trademarks and service marks for a period of 20 years and leases standardized restaurant facilities to them for the same term. In addition, franchisees acquire a variety of proprietary information concerning the “standards, specifications, procedures and methods for operating *465 a Burger King Restaurant.� …

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount