Lawnix - Free Case Briefs

Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Tue, 04 May 2010 20:27:38 +0000

A modification to a contract is not enforceable where a party promises to pay more than the amount originally agreed upon for doing what the other party was already obligated to do. The modification must be supported by new consideration to be enforceable. [...]

Contributory Negligence

Lawnix — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:56:12 +0000

Contributory negligence occurs when an injured party has contributed to her injuries through her own negligent conduct. It can prevent recovery when the plaintiff’s conduct falls below the legal standard for self protection from an unreasonable risk of harm. It was an absolute defense at common law and was a complete bar to recovery. Brown v. Kendall […]

Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United States – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:55:46 +0000

In order to claim a reward offered by a private party, the prospective claimant must know of the reward before acting. A prospective claimant cannot assent to a reward offer unless he or she knows of the offer before acting. In this case Glover did not know of the reward when she gave information to the police; therefore there was no assent and no contract. This holding is limited to rewards offered by private organizations and not to rewards offered by government agencies. Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. [...]

Twining v. New Jersey – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:16:41 +0000

The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not a fundamental right, immunity, or privilege of United States citizens, and it is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The words "due process of law” in the Fourteenth Amendment are intended to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of powers of government. The Due Process Clause however only applies to federal courts and does not extend to the courts of states that have not adopted the right by their own laws. Adamson v. California [...]

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:35:14 +0000

The lower state law standard of review of jury awards may be applied by federal courts consistent with the Seventh Amendment if the standard is applied by the federal trial court judge, and the standard of review by the federal appellate court shall be “abuse of discretion”. The review of jury awards is a matter of substantive law. If federal courts apply the more stringent "shock the conscience" test under federal law in reviewing jury awards for claims governed by New York law, there will be substantial variations in money judgments depending on whether they are brought in New York state courts or federal courts in diversity. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins [...]

Vogt v. Madden – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:56:58 +0000

It is clear that the jury did not believe Madden’s testimony that he expressly rejected an agreement for 1981. The issue therefore is whether silence or inaction may constitute acceptance of an offer. Madden objected to the instruction to the jury that silence or inaction may constitute acceptance if the party was under a duty to speak or to reject the offer. The jury was instructed that such a duty may arise between parties from a prior course of dealing, or where an offeree takes the benefit offered with reasonable opportunity to reject it and has reason to believe the offeror thought the offer was accepted. Balfour v. Balfour [...]

Fairmount Glass Works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co. – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:31:28 +0000

In order to determine whether a communication constitutes an offer, the court must determine the contractual intent of the parties and the true meaning of the correspondence must be determined by reading it as a whole. The expression "for immediate acceptance" in Fairmount’s telegram, taken in context with Crunden’s request for a price quotation, indicates that it was meant to be an offer which formed a binding contract when accepted. Harvey v. Facey [...]

Doutre v. Niec – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:45:54 +0000

In a negligence lawsuit liability and damages are inseperable. A new trial for a redetermination of liability must include the issue of damages. It was error to exclude the testimony on the standard of care observed by other beauty shops in the area and a new trial is required. The questions of liability and damages are so closely intertwined that they usually may not be separated. The jury that determines liability should also have the responsibility of awarding damages. If liability is clear however a new trial may be granted limited to the issue of damages. Hadley v. Baxendale [...]

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. – Case Brief Summary

Lawnix — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:01:00 +0000

The tax imposed by the Act is not a tax, but a penalty to coerce submission, and cannot be upheld as an expression of the taxing power. The provisions of the Act regarding collective bargaining, the control of wages, hours, and working conditions of coal miners are not within the authority of Congress and are therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution grants to Congress no general power to regulate for the promotion of the general welfare. Commerce Clause [...]

Commerce Clause – The Commerce Power of Congress

Lawnix — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:14:06 +0000

The scope of the commerce power depends on the interpretation of “commerce”. If construed sufficiently broadly, the commerce power can give Congress the power to legislate in many areas that otherwise would fall within the scope of the states’ police power. The Constitution does not define the term and the Supreme Court therefore has great flexibility in deciding cases involving the Commerce Clause and enormous power to influence the balance of state versus federal power. Wickard v. Filburn [...]