Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732 Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract. Facts: In 1981, Dale Dyer lost his foot in a work-related accident while employed at National By-Products Inc. National By-Products Inc. placed Dale Dyer on a paid leave of absence until he returned to work in August 1982 and was laid off indefinitely in March 1983. Dale Dyer sued his former employer for breach of oral contract alleging they offered lifetime employment in exchange for not bringing
a claim against them regarding his work-related injury. National By-Products Inc., filed a motion for summary judgement claiming the agreement did not exist and the motion was granted. Dale Dyer appealed with the Iowa supreme court on the basis he had a valid claim to file suit for his work-related injury and that was sufficient consideration to uphold a contract with National By-Products, Inc. Issue: Whether agreeing not to file a lawsuit is sufficient consideration if the claim in the lawsuit is invalid. Holding: Dale Dyer has sufficient consideration. Reasoning: The court held that a promise not to file a claim is valid consideration if the party making the promise believed in good faith that the claim was valid. Decision: The summary judgement to National By-Products was reversed and remanded to determine that Dale Dyers claim was in good faith.
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
...e terms and conditions the job entailed. I believe that Wal-Mart did accommodate Pam Huber’s disability needs by suggesting to her a different position to work in due to her downfall. If the company caused for her accident then they should accommodate for her disability and keep Pam Huber in her position but due to the fact that the accident happened on her own terms I do not think the company should be reliable for her disability and therefore Pam Huber should either accept and make the most out of her situation or leave the company. Based on all these factors I am defiantly in agreement with Wal-Mart and the district courts decision on ruling summery judgment in favor of Pam Huber.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
In the case Richardson vs. J. C. Flood company the appellate court ruled in favor of J. C Flood Company for the work that was done on Richardson’s property. The reason that the case turned out in J. C. Flood Company’s favor was due to the fact that Richardson would frequently check in on the progress of the work, but made no objection or attempt to stop the extra work from being don’t, until the entire job was finished when the appellant refused to pay any part of the bill submitted.
Barber v. Superior Court of California, 147 Cal. App. 3d 10006, 1017-18, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1983)
The case I chose to do was Patrick Joseph Potter, Appellant, v. Green Meadows, Par 3, Appellee. The case was found in the Southern Reporter, volume 510 starting on page 1225. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District heard the case and made its decision on August 13, 1987; 510 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1987).
Priester v. Ford Motor Company, 131 Supreme Court of United States. 1570, 179 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2011).
Bailii.org, (2014). Roche -v- Roche & ors [2009] IESC 82 (15 December 2009). [online] Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2009/S82.html [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].
On 09/10/2010, a judgement was filed against AutoZone Inc. for wrongful employment practices by discriminating against an employee because of his religious beliefs. The AutoZone in question is located in Everett, Massachusetts. Mr. Mahoney Burroughs had been an employee of AutoZone since 2007 as a Senior
The Supreme Court established Weingarten Rights in 1975 because of National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc., which was a supermarket company. Weingarten Rights include the right for employees to have a representative, of their choice, present at meetings that may result in disciplinary action against the employees. In other words, Weingarten Rights guarantee an employee the right to Union representation during an investigatory interview. The Supreme Court ruled that there be three rules in place during an investigatory interview. The rules are as followed:
his decision concerns an application for permission to appeal against a decision 1 of Senior Deputy President Richards handed down on 7 May 2015 (Decision). The Decision concerned an unfair dismissal application made by Ms Elizabeth Atkinson on 12 January 2015 under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the termination of her employment by L.R.G catering Pty. Ltd T/A Marine Provisioning Australia (Respondent).
195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Pearl, 89 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Utah 2000).
...any claimed to have fired him for “cause” which means he had been convicted or entered a no-contest plea to a felony or had been found guilty of fraud or embezzlement. The suit seeks damages and a retraction of company statements that said Orlick was fired for "cause." This cases outcome has not yet been published.