Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors 216 Or.App. 355, 173 P.3d 1242 (2007)
Summary. A car dealer’s a sales manager disapproved of the tactics used by a third-party firm in conducting sales promotion for the company. The company terminated him when he refused to cooperate. He sued for wrongful discharge, but the Oregon SC ruled against him.
Personal and Legal Analysis. Despite allegations of deceptive trade practices, the Court found for the employer because it did not compel the employee to commit any unlawful activity.
Answers to End-of-Case Questions. (1) Lamson could sue for wrongful discharge on the grounds of whistle-blowing. The person involved in the illegal practice knows more about it than the customers. Car dealers may think twice about hiring Lamson. (2) The division of powers among the three branches of government precludes courts from regulating consumer practices.
Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, LLC 143 Idaho 723, 152 P.3d 594 (2007)
Summary. Plaintiff resides in Idaho and defendant in Maine. The former sued the latter for fraud in an Idaho state court. The Idaho state court entered a judgment against the defendant although the latter did not answer the complaint.
Personal and Legal Analysis. The Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant for two reasons: the defendant caused an injury that was unlawful under Idaho laws, and; it did not offend due process under the 14th Amendment.
Answers to End-of-Case Questions. (1) No. A state court can only have jurisdiction over an out-of-state seller, if the legal requirements are met. (2) MyWeb cannot move the case because federal courts have jurisdiction only when the amount involved is above $75,000.
Cooper Tire & Rubber v. Mendez 204 S.W.3d 797 (2006)
Summary. A minivan rolled killing four of its passengers. Its rear tire lost a thread and had a nail puncture. The survivors sued for product defect and presented an expert testimony.
Personal and Legal Analysis. An expert testimony must be made by a qualified expert, and it must be based on reliable facts. The expert presented lacked satisfactory credentials and his testimony was based on a novel theory not widely accepted by all.
Answers to End-of-Case Questions. (1) A new trial was not proper because the Court already reversed the decision. (2) The jury’s judgment was based on an inadmissible testimony.
Katzenbach v. McClung 379 U.S. 294, 85 S.Ct. 377 (1964)
Summary. A restaurant in Alabama allowed blacks to buy only at its take-out counter, but not dine inside. The defendant served local residents, but brought food from out-of-state. Personal and Legal Analysis. The restaurant still affected interstate commerce because a substantial portion of the food it used for business came from out-of-state.
Answers to End-of-Case Questions. (1) Yes. Although only the locals patronized it, the restaurant opened itself to the general public, including interstate customers. (2) No. The defiance of the law by some does not negate its soundness.
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005)
Summary. The City of New London used its power of eminent domain to acquire riverfront properties and transform the area into an upscale and modern urban center. Some property owners sued the city on the grounds of violation of the ‘public use’ requirement. The Court ruled in favor of the city.
Personal and Legal Analysis. The generation of jobs, among others, as a goal of the eminent domain is a legitimate public purpose.
Answers to End-of-Case Questions. (1) No, such taking must meet the public purpose requirement. (2) The government acts for welfare of the general public, but individual owners naturally place themselves above anyone else.
References
Meiners, R., Ringleb, A. and Edwards, F. (2008). The Legal Environment of Business. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
