Quiz 4: Judicial, Alternative, Administrative, and E-Dispute Resolution
Summary judgment: Summary judgment is also known as judgment as a matter of law. It is a judgment given, preferably for one party and against the other party involved. The judgment is given without giving a full trial to the case on either having merits of the case or when there discrete issues in the case. In the given case, the person PT fell over the cases of soda and filed the suit of negligence against the store PS and the dry bottling company. P made a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff PT had no idea how long the soda had been on the floor. In accordance with this case, as the court does not have merit and full information about the case, the defendant's motion of asking for a summary judgment should not be granted. The plaintiff has still not declared the time since the soda was on the floor. The case is still not in favor of one party. Hence, the court should not grant him a summary judgment.
Long arm statute: Long-arm Statute is a part of international laws which is based on the principle that one country is not allowed to exercise state power over other territories. In other words, the local courts can exercise jurisdiction over foreign (other nation, province, and state jurisdiction) defendants only if the defendants had minimum contact with the state forum. Facts: Person S was a professional boxer, his father P was his manager. P entered in a contract with M corporations to conduct a fight in a championship held in city O. A press conference was organized by P before the fight in the city O where person S got in argument with a sportswriter B and hit B in his face. B filed a suit against P and M Corporation. Outcome: In the given case, incident took place in the city O and both M corporation and person P were from outside the city O. It is clearly stated that it was the first time that the fight for the championship was held in the city O; moreover the employees of M corporation went to the city O to plan the flight. Hence, it can be said that M corporation had minimum contact with the state forum of city O. So, the O state court have jurisdiction over M corporation.
Facts of the Case • RS was working as a bus driver with G Corporation. • RS's bus met with an accident with a tractor-trailer. • RS and G were sued for damages by seven passengers who got injured in the accident. • They contended that Greyhound was negligent for allowing RS to drive a bus when it knew that his eyes and vision were impaired and deficient. • The plaintiffs contended in the court that RS to be medically examined in order to combat these allegations. • RS was not ready to this examination. Issue The issue is whether RS was right in objecting the physical examination by contending that it is intruding his privacy. Findings and Decision of the Law The court found that "FRCP Rule 35 applies to defendants as well as plaintiffs". "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 35 allows a movant to compel mental and physical examinations for party-opponents as well as persons under their legal control through a showing of good cause and when a person's physical or mental condition is at issue". The court held "that is no basis to apply the doctrine in favor of one class of litigants and not the other". FRCP Rule 35 "only requires that the person to be examined be a party to the 'action', not that he be an opposing party of the movant. In this case the petitioner was clearly a party to the action".