The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its response situated In the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal lordliest. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements necessary to subject the defendant to the personal jurisdiction of North Carolina’s courts.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision stating that due to the nature of the ongoing relationship between the parties the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts within North Carolina to Justify the exercise of personal Jurisdiction over the defendant without violating due process. Extended Case 2. : The Legal Services Corporation (LLC) (the defendant) was established by the federal government in order to provide federal funds to local legal assistance programs for individuals who cannot afford to pay for legal services, with the stipulation that recipients must maintain legal, physical and financial separation from organizations that engage In class-action lawsuits and other restricted purposes. In an attempt to cut costs the state of Oregon (the plaintiff) decided to insolate legal assistance programs In the state that provided services In the same geographic area.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
The LLC did not agree with the integration of LLC funded organizations with any programs that engaged in restricted activities. The state of Oregon filed suit against LLC in a federal district court on the grounds that the state’s ability to provide legal services to its citizens was frustrated. The court dismissed the suit “on the merits”, meaning that the decision was based on the fundamental Issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as Inconsequential and Oregon appealed the decision.
The appellate court agreed that Oregano’s complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that Oregon failed to show an actual injury because the state has no right to control the conditions under which a voluntary grant of federal funds is giving to specific private institutions. Extended Case 2. 3: The plaintiff, National Cash Register Company (NCR), brought a suit against the defendant, Kraal Associates Ltd. (KALE), alleging an Instance of copyright Infringement.
NCR developed a software solution to upgrade the security of Its Tams. At the same time, KALE claimed to have developed similar security software as a security upgrade for Ann.’s Tams in fulfillment of an agreement the two companies entered into in 1 998 under which KALE agreed to develop security software for Ann.’s use. NCR brought a suit claiming that KALE committed copyright infringement by copying APT SF software from a proprietary ATM that had been loaned to them by NCR.
At trial, KALE moved that the court compel NCR to arbitration under the terms of but the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding that Ann.’s claims of copyright infringement fell within the scope of the arbitration clause untainted in the 1998 Agreement. In delivering the opinion of the court Chief Justice Batcher stated that “only an express provision excluding a specific dispute, or the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration, will remove the dispute from consideration by the arbitrators. Extended Case 3. 1: The plaintiff, Alan Cruz, suffered burns on the left side of his thigh while attempting to take the lid off of a pressure cooker distributed by Figaro America Inc. (the defendant). Crud’s parents sent an email to Figaro on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Figaro alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability.
Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Figaro failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default Judgment against the defendant.