The Entrepreneur's Guide to Business Law, 4th Edition by Constance E. Bagley & Craig E. Dauchy

Author:Constance E. Bagley & Craig E. Dauchy [Bagley, Constance E.]
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Publisher: Cengage Learning
Published: 2011-01-24T05:00:00+00:00

* * *

Notes

1. Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 694 A.2d 1017 (N.J. 1997).

2. See Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, 752 So. 2d 762 (La. 1999) (explaining the four approaches courts across the United States take in determining when a crime is foreseeable, exposing a business to liability for crimes perpetrated by third parties against its customers).

3. Otis Eng’g Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1983).

4. Lett v. Collis Foods, 60 S.W.3d 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

5. Faverty v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Oregon, Inc., 892 P.2d 703 (Ore. Ct. App. 1995).

6. See, e.g., Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 222 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2000).

7. See, e.g., McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1999) (concluding that party who entered into settlement agreement with lender, which could not be enforced after lender was declared insolvent, could bring suit against lender’s attorneys for representing that agreement would be enforceable).

8. Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006).

9. Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (1984) (dictum, observing that “[o]ne of the principal purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act was to waive the Government’s immunity from liability for injuries resulting from auto accidents in which employees of the Postal System were at fault”).

10. See, e.g., Heupel v. Jenkins, 919 N.E.2d 378 (Ill. App. 2009).

11. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).

12. Wallace v. Stringer, 553 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

13. Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987).

14. Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 518 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

15. Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App. 1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 994 (1988), superseded in part by statute on other grounds, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.002, repealed by acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 204 (H.B. 4), § 7.03(1).

16. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2003).

17. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003).

18. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1.

19. Id.

20. 15 U.S.C.S. § 15.

21. 551 U.S. 877 (2007). The Court reversed precedent dating back to Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911).

22. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

23. Robert A. Guth & Mark Boslet, Microsoft, Sun Announce Details of Collaboration, WALL ST. J., May 16, 2005, at B4.

24. Constance E. Bagley, Commission of the European Communities v. Microsoft Corporation, Yale School of Management case 07-054 (2007).

25. Press Release, The European Commission, Antitrust: Commission Confirms Sending a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on the Tying of Internet Explorer to Windows (Jan. 17, 2009), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/15&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (last visited Aug. 12, 2010); Press Release, The European Commission, Antitrust: Commission Accepts Microsoft Commitments to Give Users Browser Choice (Dec. 16, 2009), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1941&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN (last visited Aug. 12, 2010).

26. Id.

27. The Federal Trade Commission made its proposed consent order available for public comment on August 10, 2010.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.