Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
91 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
unanimous decisions
|
microsoft
matrix nasa |
|
dissent
|
kelo
chamber pliva palsgraf brown |
|
who dissented kelo
|
oconnor, rehnquist, scalia, thomas
|
|
who dissented pliva
|
sotomayor, ginsburg, breyer, kagan
|
|
who dissented chamber
|
breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor
kagan took no part |
|
9the circuit
|
brown
nasa matrix chamber |
|
microsoft appeals court
|
us court of appeals for federal circuit
|
|
kelo court of appeals
|
supreme court of connecticut
|
|
pliva appeals court
|
united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
|
|
palsgraf appeals court
|
court of appeals of new york
|
|
Brown author
|
scalia
|
|
kelo author
|
stevens
|
|
matrix author
|
sotomayor
|
|
microsoft author
|
sotomayor
|
|
nasa author
|
alito
|
|
chamber author
|
roberts
|
|
palsgraf author
|
cardozo
|
|
palsgraf minority opinion
|
andrews
|
|
pliva author
|
thomas
|
|
chamber- who won at each level
decision at end |
whiting won all 3
LAWA does not preempt by IRCA affirmed |
|
lawa
|
legal arizona workers act
|
|
irca
|
immigration act of 1986
|
|
[T]/[F] CHAMBER was a 5-3 decision; Kagan took no part.
|
true
|
|
[T]/[F] CHAMBER was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.
|
true
|
|
3. CHAMBER majority opinion was authored by________________.
|
roberts
|
|
4. [T]/[F] Federal question in the CHAMBER case involved IRCA
|
true
|
|
[T]/[F] In the CHAMBER case and in the HAGAN case, the plaintiff brought a pre-enforcement action based upon an allegation that the state statute violated a federal law.
|
false
|
|
6. [T]/[F] The CHAMBER case plaintiff claimed that IRCA was pre-empted by LAWA.
|
false
|
|
[T]/[F] In the CHAMBER case, Justice Breyer argued that LAWA was pre-empted by the IRCA.
|
true
|
|
According to the majority opinion in the CHAMBER case, an employer who hires an illegal alien to work in Arizona would face the business death penalty IF:
|
[d] The employer intentionally hires an illegal worker without using E-verify
|
|
9. [T]/[F] The business death penalty refers to the concept that Arizona can suspend or revoke the license of a business failing to comply with LAWA.
|
true
|
|
10. [T]/[F] Scienter is required before the so-called business death penalty could be applied under LAWA.
|
true
|
|
defamation
|
the false statement of facts that harms the good reputation of a living person published to a third party
|
|
trespass
|
intentionally and wrongfully entering ones property without permission
|
|
negligence
|
careless behavior and not standard upheld by a reasonable person that causes harm.
a duty of due care, breach, causation, damages |
|
strict liability
|
even if person was not careless and obeyed laws, still liable. defective products, ultra hazardous activities, wild animals
|
|
15. [T]/[F] Scienter is required for the tort of battery.
|
true
|
|
16. [T]/[F] If P suffers no physical injury, then the Impact rule precludes (prevents from happening) recover for emotional distress damages.
|
true
|
|
If P sues D for negligence, but P herself was careless, then in VA the rule of Comparative negligence would apply.
|
false
contribuitory |
|
[T]/[F] If P sues D for strict liability, then P must allege and prove D was negligent
|
false
|
|
19.[T]/[F] Strict liability applies if the harm resulted from an ultra hazardous activity, wild animal or defective product.
|
true
|
|
[T]/[F] Scienter is required in Strict Liability torts.
|
false
|
|
[T]/[F] MICROSOFT was a unanimous decision.
|
true
|
|
[T]/[F] MICROSOFT was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.
|
false
|
|
MICROSOFT majority opinion was authored by________________.
|
sotomayor
|
|
[T]/[F] NASA v. NELSON was a “federal” case due to the federal question at issue.
|
true
|
|
[T]/[F] In the MICROSOFT case, the other party _______________________ alleged that MICROSOFT committed patent infringement.
|
true
i4i limited partnership |
|
[T]/[F] The MICROSOFT case defense alleged that the other party’s patent was invalid.
|
true
|
|
The basis of obtaining a PATENT initially depends upon demonstrating that the item for which the PATENT is desired is
|
not obvious, genuine, useful and novel
|
|
In the MICROSOFT case, one of the factual points of contention concerned the allegation that the patented item had been on the market for more than a year before the patent was issued by the USPTO and who was required to prove this allegation.
|
true
|
|
uspto
|
united states patent and trademark office
|
|
In the MICROSOFT case, the determination of WHO MUST PROVE WHAT is called by this legal term:
|
burden of proof
|
|
10.The issue in the NASA case was:______________________________________.
|
does nasas background investigations violate federal contract employees right to informal privacy
|
|
obscenity
and case related |
explicit sexual conduct
-brown vs the board of entertainment merchents |
|
impact rule
|
requirement of physical contact/injury with an individual person in order for damages fir emotional distress to be imposed
-hegan |
|
infringement
|
unauthorized use of copyrighted or patented material or for a trademark
-microsoft vs i4i |
|
privacy
|
right to be free of unnecessary public scrutiny or to be let alone
|
|
microsoft who won at each level
|
district- i4i won
appeals- i4i won supreme- i4i won microsoft infringed i4i affirmed |
|
[T]/[F] MATRIXX was a unanimous decision.
|
true
|
|
T]/[F] MATRIXX was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.
|
true
|
|
matrixx vs
|
siracusano
|
|
plaintiff and defendent in matrix case
|
plaintiff = siracusano
defendent= matrixx |
|
MATRIXX majority opinion was authored by________________.
|
sotomayor
|
|
[T]/[F] MATRIXX was a “federal” case due to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
|
false
|
|
[a&b] In the MATRIXX case, the other party [name them] [a]_________________ alleged that [b] ____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________. |
siracusano
zicam did not disclose reports |
|
[a&b]The MATRIXX case cause of action was based upon a failure by [name the party] [a]____________________to [describe the behavior] [b]_______________________________________
|
matrix
fail to disclose that zican caused anosmia (loss of smell) |
|
Name the MATRIXX leading product involved in this case ____________________.
|
zicam
|
|
[T]/[F] In the MATRIXX case, one of the factual points of contention concerned the allegation that the complaint failed to plead scienter.
|
true
|
|
a&b].In the MATRIXX case, the determination of what is needed to state a cause of action under the S.E.C. Act of 1934 Section #[a]________________ [state the section #] includes
|
10 b-5
[ii] Material misrepresentation or omission and scienter |
|
10.[T]/[F] According to the MATRIXX case, statistically significant data is required to establish the inference of causation
|
false
|
|
matrixx outcome at courts
|
district:
p-sircusana d- matrixx-won appeals: appelent= siracusano- won defendent=matrix -reverse decision supreme: respondent=siracusano-won appelent= matrixx affirmed |
|
rule of matrixx
analysis |
securities exchange act 1935
-primary requirements include registration of any securities listed on stock exchange, disclosure, and margin & audit requirments must disclose adverse event reports |
|
matrixx essentially was
|
withholding information from stock holders
|
|
issue in matrixx
|
can a plaintiss state a claim under the securities exchange act based on pharmaceutical company's non disclose of reports even though the reports are not alleged to be statistically significant?
|
|
conclusion matrixx
|
yes. the court ruled that the materiality of pharmaceutical company's non disclosure of adverse event reports in a securities fraud action does not depend upon whether there is a statistically significant health risk
|
|
nasa vs nelson court decisions
|
district:
p- nelson d- nasa - won appeal: a - nelson - won r - nasa reversed supreme a-nasa - won r- nelson reversed and remanded nasas background checks dont violate federal employee s consitutional right to informational privacy |
|
1. [T]/[F] Brown was a unanimous decision.
|
false
|
|
2. [T]/[F] Brown was on cert. to the 9th Circuit USCA.
|
true
|
|
3. Brown majority opinion was authored by________________.
|
scalia
|
|
4. [T]/[F] Brown was a “federal” case due to the diversity of citizenship of the parties
to the case. |
false
|
|
[T]/[F] In the Brown case, the respondents originally brought a “pre-enforcement”
suit to challenge the constitutionality of the California statute prohibiting sale of violent video games to minors. |
true
|
|
6. [T]/[F] The case was first heard in the federal district court; the USDC ruled that
the California law violated the 1stamendment. |
true
|
|
[T]/[F] The Brown case was appealed to the next level; the name of that court was
the USCA for the 9thcircuit and the 9thcircuit USCA affirmed the decision of the USDC. |
true
|
|
8. [T]/[F] Finally, the Brown case was then appealed to the ultimate appeals court, the USSC; the USSC rendered a split decision.
|
true
|
|
9. The majority opinion of the USSC on the Brown case was:
|
affirm
|
|
The first amendment’s key principle is that government shall not abridge freedom of expression and there are NO exceptions to this key principle.
|
false
obscinity |
|
obscenity
|
sexually explicit conduct
|
|
et al
|
and others
|
|
certiorari
|
order by which higher court reviews decision of lower court
|
|
strict scrutiny
|
form of judicial review that determines constiutionality of laws
|
|
rationale basis
|
test determine laws constitutionality, lower than strict scrutiny
|