Business Law Test 1 Scenarios and Case Problems
Unlock all answers in this set
Unlock answersquestion
A county court in Illinois is deciding a case involving an issue that has never been addressed before in that state's court's. The Iowa Supreme Court, however, recently decided a case involving a very similar fact pattern. Is the Illinois court obligated to follow the Iowa supreme Court's decision on the issue? If the United States Supreme Court had decided a similar case, would the decision be binding on the Illinois court? Please, explain.
answer
1) No, Iowa's ruling would not be binding because its a different state. 2) Most likely yes but it depends on the cases and decisions involved. 1)No. Authority from other state courts can be persuasive, but is never binding. 2)Yes. A court in State X is generally bound to follow decisions by all higher courts in State X and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court because the USSC is the final arbiter of all matters within its jurisdiction. The USSC only has jurisdiction to decide matters of federal law (including constitutional matters). It doesn't have jurisdiction to decide matters of state law such as whether a particular party has the capacity to enter into a contract. State courts spend relatively little time deciding matters of federal law except as it relates to matters of constitutionality, so that is likely the only area in which a state trial court would be dealing with a matter that the USSC had previously decided.
question
Under a Massachusetts state statute, large wineries could sell their products through wholesalers or to consumers directly, but not both. Small wineries could use both methods. Family winemakers of California filed a suit against the state, arguing that this restriction gave small wineries a competitive advantage in violation of the U.S. constitution. The court agreed that the statute was in conflict with the constitution. Which source of law takes priority, and why?
answer
The Massachusetts law favor instate winemakers over foreign winemakers. This type of law falls under the \"dormant Commerce Clause\" which prohibits discrimination in interstate commerce. The \"dormant\" Commerce Clause, also known as the \"negative\" Commerce Clause, arises under the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate commerce \"among the several states.\" which implies a negative converse or restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflict between state and federal statutes. However, Congress may allow state legislation that otherwise would be forbidden by the dormant Commerce Clause. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. any state law that is in conflict with the constitution is null and void
question
The Russ college of engineering and technology of Ohio university announced in a press conference that it had found 'rampant and flagrant plagiarism' in the theses of mechanical engineering graduate students. Faculty singled out for \"ignoring their ethical responsibilities\" included jay gunasekera, chair of the department. Gunasekera was prohibited from advising students. He filed a suit against Dennis Irwin, the dean of russ college, for violating his due process rights. what does due process require in these circumstances? why?
answer
Gunasekera's \"case or controversy\" lies within his liberty interest in his reputation as an employed faculty member of a state supported institution of higher education [assumption] which is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the institution took \"action\" against him, the full rudimentary demands of fair play under due process required notice and opportunity to be heard before his liberty interests in his employment could be affected absent some exigent circumstances which would otherwise allow a temporary suspension. I would note that if the university is a private institution; then due process is not required. Only some procedure required between the employee and employer or a collective bargaining agreement.
question
Under the Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, sex offenders must register and update their registration as sex offenders when they travel from one state to another. David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his registration. He was charged with violating Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. He claimed that the statute if unconstitutional, arguing that Congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved. Is that reasonable? Why or why not? United States v. Guzman, 591, F.3d 83 (2010)
answer
Law is Under Commerce Clause (federal) has to comply. Congress may have determined that it was unworkable, as a practical matter, to devise a sex-offender registration system that could monitor only those sex offenders who traveled in interstate commerce. Recognizing the federalism concerns that the Supreme Court expressed in Lopez and Morrison, however, Congress limited federal criminal enforcement of § 16913 to instances in which the sex offender crosses state lines. Congress must be afforded the opportunity to use its \"discretion with respect to the means by which [its] powers are to be carried into execution.\" Therefore, the court concludes that Congress had the authority to enact § 16913 and make it applicable to § 2250. Accordingly, the court holds that § 16913 is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Motion is DENIED.
question
Judge James DeWeese hung a poster in hug courtroom showing the Ten Commandments. the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a suit, alleging that the poster violated the establishment clause. DeWeese responded that his purpose was not to promote religion but to express his view about \"warring\" legal philosophies-moral relativism and moral absolutism. \"Our legal system is based on moral absolutes from divine law handed down by God through the Ten Commandments.\" Does this poster violate the establishment clause? Why or why not?
answer
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing laws or taking actions that promote religion or show a preference for one religion over another. In assessing a government action, the courts look at the predominant purpose for the action and ask whether the action has the effect of endorsing religion. Although DeWeese claimed to have a nonreligious purpose for displaying the poster of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, his own statement showed a religious purpose. These statements reflected his view about \"warring\" legal philosophies and his belief that \"our legal system is based on moral absolutes from diving law handed down by God through the Ten Commandments.\" This plainly constitutes a religious purpose that violates the establishment clause because it has the effect of endorsing Judaism or Christianity over other religions. In the case on which this problem is based, the court rules in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union
question
Spotlight on AOL—Common law. AOL, LLC, mistakenly made public the personal information of 650,000 of its members. The members filed a suit, alleging violations of California law. AOL asked the court to dismiss the suit on the basis of a \"forum-selection\" clause in its member agreement that designates Virginia courts as the place where member disputes will be tried. Under a decision of the United States Supreme Court, a forum-selection clause is unenforceable \"if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.\" California has declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. If the court applies the doctrine of stare decisis, will it dismiss the suit?
answer
Dismiss the suit because it does not comply with California law. Dropped the case, suggested to file again in the state of California.
question
The Dormant Commerce Clause. In 2001, Puerto Rico enacted a law that requires specific labels on cement sold in Puerto Rico and imposes fines for any violations of these requirements. The law prohibits the sale or distribution of cement manufactured outside Puerto Rico that does not carry a required label warning that the cement may not be used in government-financed construction projects. Antilles Cement Corp., a Puerto Rican firm that imports foreign cement, filed a complaint in federal court, claiming that this law violated the dormant commerce clause. (The dormant commerce clause doctrine applies not only to commerce among the states and U.S. territories, but also to international commerce.) Did the 2001 Puerto Rican law violate the dormant commerce clause? Why or why not?
answer
The Dormant Commerce Clause has been inferred from the Commerce Clause (in the US Constitution) to allow the US federal government to regulate commerce within the states, US territories, and international commerce. The commerce clause stretches far and wide. When any state law conflicts with the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause ALWAYS wins. In this scenario, Puerto Rico is prohibited from enforcing any laws concerning commerce- this power is left up to the US government. So, based on this restraint of power, YES the Puerto Rican law violated the dormant commerce clause. Puerto Rico does not have the power to regulate the cement labels because this law concerns commerce (and the US has the power to regulate commerce within the US territories and abroad).
question
Aric Toll owns and manages the balboa island village inn, a restaurant and bar in Newport beach, California. Anne Lemen lives across from the inn. Lemen complained to the authorities about the inn's customers, whom she calls \"drunks\" and \"whores.\" Lemen told the Inn's bartender Ewa Cook that Cook \"worked for Satan.\" She repeated her statements to potential customers, and the Inn's sale dropped more than 20 percent. The Inn filed a suit against Lemen 1. Are Lemen's statements about the Inn's owners and customers protected by the U.S. Constitution? in whose favor should the court rule? why? 2. Did Lemen behave unethically in the circumstances of the case? Explain
answer
-Lemen's statements are protected by the U.S. constitution (1st Amendment, freedom of speech) -Lemen did behave unethically in court with her use to slur and derogatory words.
question
Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. 3x in 2011, the test of food products that contained peanut butter were positive for Salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to US Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to simply repeat the test until the outcome was negative. Therefore, the products that had originally tested positive for Salmonella or eventually shipped out to retailers. 5 people who ate Trevor's bakery goods in 2011 became is seriously ill, and one person died from Salmonella. Even though Trevor's conduct was legal, was it unethical for him to sell goods that had one tested positive for Salmonella? If Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions but he still have sold the contaminated goods? Why or why not?
answer
All the traverse conduct was legal it was unethical for him to sell products that tested positive for Salmonella if Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions he would have not sold the contaminated goods. The six steps to making ethical business decisions R 1 the law, to rules and procedures, 3 values, 4 conscience, 5 promise, 6 heroes. Jason Trevor would have stopped at Rule three witches values because selling contaminated food goes against society's values
question
Shokun Steel Co. owns many steel plants. One of its plants is much older than the others. Equipment at the old plant is outdated and inefficient, and the costs of production at that plant are now twice as high as at any of Shokun's other plants. Shokun cannot increase the price of its steel because of competition, both domestic and international. The plant employs more than a thousand workers; it is located in Twin Firs, Pennsylvania, which has a population of about 45,000. Shokun is contemplating whether to close the plant. What Factors should the firm consider in making its decision? Will the firm violate any ethical duties if it closes the plant? Analyze these questions from the two basic perspectives on ethical reasoning discussed
answer
...
question
Jack and Maggie Turton bought a house in Jefferson County, Idaho, located directly across the street from a gravel pit. A few years later, the county converted the pit to a landfill. The landfill accepted many kinds of trash that cause harm to the environment, including major appliances, animal carcasses, containers with hazardous content warnings, leaking car batteries, and waste oil. The Turtons complained to the county, but the county did nothing. The Turtons then filed a lawsuit against the county alleging violations of federal environmental laws pertaining to groundwater contamination and other pollution. Do the Turtons have standing to sue?
answer
Yes Idaho is a place in United States where Jack and Maggie have bought a house; it is across the gravel pit. Gravel pit is a hole on the ground in general which has lots of gravels and is open for water to collect in the same. The county of the place converted it into a landfill which means open to the people to fill the same and hence it was being used in a bad manner and all the thrash and dirt was being thrown in their which was creating a ban environment for them and the others around
