Citation22 Ill.379 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1967) Brief Fact Summary. The United States sued Defendants claiming Defendants trespassed on government property. Atlantis moved to intervene arguing that the property at issue in the case was owned by Atlantis. The District Court denied the motion to intervene finding that Atlantis had no interest in the case and Atlantis appealed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party may intervene under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when it has an interest in the same property or same transaction and that a decision in favor of the adverse party may re ...
Search Results
Lamine v. Dorrell
Citation92 ER 303, Volume 92 View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. The decedent died intestate and Defendant was appointed administrator under false pretenses. Defendant obtained property from the estate and sold it. Defendant’s administration was repealed, Plaintiff was appointed administrator, and Plaintiff sought an indebitatus assumpsit in order to recover money Defendant obtained from selling the estate’s property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. An action can lie in indebitatus assumpsit to recover proceeds from a sale of property made under false pretense ...
Jones v. Winsor
Citation22 S.D. 480, 118 N.W. 716, 1908 S.D. View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs hired Defendant, an attorney, to secure a franchise for them. Defendant billed Plaintiffs $1,250 for his services, which he took out of a deposit returned to Defendant for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued to recover $1,000, alleging Defendant did not perform the services alleged and that Plaintiffs did not owe Defendant more than $250. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A cause of action must be identified in a complaint as tort or contract and as sounding in either law or equity to create ...
Garrity v. State Board of Administration
Citation162 P. 1167 (Kan. 1917) View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant State Board of Administration, claiming that state the University Board of Regents entered onto Plaintiff’s property and took a fossil worth $2,500 without giving Plaintiff any compensation. Plaintiff further alleged that the Board of Administration was the successor to the Board of Regents and should be held responsible for the Board of Regents’ action in taking the property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. For purposes of statute of limitations, a complaint that all ...
Bushel v. Miller
Citation386 F. Supp. 908 Brief Fact Summary. Defendant moved Plaintiff’s property, which was then lost. Plaintiff sued Defendant for conversion. Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that Defendant converted Plaintiff’s property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the English common law, the elements of a claim for conversion must be specifically pled or else the case cannot be sustained. ...
Gordon v. Harper
Citation101 ER 828, Volume 101 View this case and other resources at: Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant in trover for furniture. Plaintiff leased a house to A with the furniture in question in the house. Defendant, the sheriff, seized the goods and then sold them in an executed judgment against B, who had previously sold the goods to Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff leasing the house. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to maintain an action in trover, the party must actually have a present right to possess the property in question. ...
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
Citation304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant in federal court for negligence for an accident that occurred in Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania law, Plaintiff was a trespasser and would have to prove Defendant was wantonly negligent. Under the general rule, however, Defendant only owed a duty of ordinary care to Plaintiff. The District Court applied the general rule and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff that was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The term “laws” in Section 34 in the ...
Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison
Citation22 Ill.220 Ark. 521, 249 S.W.2d 994 (1952) Brief Fact Summary. Planters Flying Service sued Defendant for failure to pay Planters for spraying insecticide on Defendant’s crops located in Missouri. Defendant answered that the insecticide had damaged his crop and by cross-complaint sued Plaintiff, the manufacturer of the insecticide. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, arguing that it pertained to real property located in Missouri and consequently could not be sustained in Arkansas. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A lawsuit is maintainable for injury to real prope ...
Fuentes v. Shevin
Citation22 Ill.407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff financed personal property from the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company but allegedly defaulted on payment. Pursuant to the financing agreement, Firestone could reclaim the property, which it did via a prejudgment replevin statute. Plaintiff sued the Attorney General (Defendant) claiming that a statute allowing prejudgment replevin of her property by Firestone was unconstitutional. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A prejudgment replevin statute violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
Connecticut v. Doehr
Citation22 Ill.501 U.S. 1, 111 S. Ct. 2105, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1991) Brief Fact Summary. John DiGiovanni applied for attachment of real estate owned by Respondent in connection with a complaint filed by DiGiovanni against Respondent for assault. The attachment was made pursuant to a Connecticut statute. Respondent filed suit in federal court claiming the statute was unconstitutional. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A statute that allows for a prejudgment remedy via attachment of property in connection with a lawsuit upon a showing of probable cause that the applicant will prevail in the lawsuit ...
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co
Citation339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) Brief Fact Summary. Appellee, a bank located in New York, set up a trust covering 113 participants and sent notice by publication to all known and unknown beneficiaries regarding Appellee’s application for judicial settlement of the trust, as required under a New York statute. Upon first distribution of the trust, Appellee would mail notice to known beneficiaries that could benefit from the interest or principal. Appellant, guardian of the beneficiaries, appealed, arguing that notice by publication alone violated the beneficiar ...
Shaffer v. Heitner
Citation22 Ill.433 U.S. 186, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff stockholder brought a shareholder’s derivative action in Delaware state court against Defendants, corporations incorporated in Delaware with their principal place of business in Arizona, and corporate officers of the corporations (Defendants). Plaintiff moved to sequester Defendants’ property, which was stock in the company, located in Delaware as defined by the Delaware statute. Defendants moved to quash the summons and to vacate the sequestration order, arguing that both exerci ...
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Citation471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a Florida corporation, and Defendants, Michigan residents, had a franchise agreement specifying that Defendants may be subject to suit in Florida. Plaintiff sued Defendants in Florida federal court based on diversity of citizenship for non-payment under the franchise agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Florida did not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the defendant has a business relationship and agreement with a corpor ...
Pennoyer v. Neff
Citation95 U.S. 714, 5 Otto 714, 24 L. Ed. 565 (1878) Brief Fact Summary. Default judgment was rendered against Plaintiff, a non-resident of Oregon who was not present in that state, in Oregon state court. Plaintiff was served by publication and Plaintiff’s Oregon property was levied in order to satisfy the judgment. The property was subsequently sold to Defendant at a sheriff’s auction. Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover the tract of land, claiming the state court did not have jurisdiction to bind Plaintiff to the judgment in the previous action. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A st ...
Hess v. Pawloski
Citation274 U.S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632,71 L. Ed. 1091, 1927 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant, a resident of Pennsylvania, for injuries that occurred in a car accident in Massachusetts. A Massachusetts statute stated that driving through Massachusetts constitutes implied consent to have the state registrar accept service of process for non-residents, provided a copy of the summons was sent to the defendant. Defendant objected for lack of personal jurisdiction and eventually appealed a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. States can require that motorists give ...
Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co
Citation22 Ill.113 F. Supp. 881 (S.D. W. Va. 1953) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff received a free pass to ride on Defendant railroad company’s train. During the ride, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and later sued the Defendant for negligence based on the injuries sustained. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff had not shown a genuine issue as to whether Defendant engaged in willful or wanton conduct. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Upon a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, the moving party must present admiss ...
Alexander v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc
Citation22 Ill.273 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1959) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff and Defendant employees were injured when Plaintiff’s truck rear ended Defendant’s truck. Plaintiff trucking company sued Defendant trucking company for damage to the truck and personal injuries arising from the collision of the two trucks. At trial, Defendant did not object when the judge charged the jury that Defendant had the burden to prove contributory negligence but argues on appeal from a verdict for Plaintiff that such instruction should not have been given. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party waives ...
North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago
CitationNorth American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306, 29 S. Ct. 101, 53 L. Ed. 195, 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1546 (U.S. Dec. 7, 1908) Brief Fact Summary. North American Cold Storage Company (Complainant) sought an injunction against the City of Chicago (Defendant), which demanded from Complainant 47 barrels of poultry on the grounds that it was spoiled and unfit for human consumption. Complainant argued that Section:1161 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago authorizing such conduct conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law. T ...
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
CitationCleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 68, 53 U.S.L.W. 4306, 118 L.R.R.M. 3041, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 424 (U.S. Mar. 19, 1985) Brief Fact Summary. The Cleveland Board of Education (Board) hired James Loudermill (Respondent) in 1979 as a security guard. Respondent stated on his application that he had never been convicted of a felony; and the Board fired him when it discovered he had been convicted of grand larceny in 1968. Respondent filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that ...
North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago
CitationNorth American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306, 29 S. Ct. 101, 53 L. Ed. 195, 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1546 (U.S. Dec. 7, 1908) Brief Fact Summary. North American Cold Storage Company (Complainant) sought an injunction against the City of Chicago (Defendant), which demanded from Complainant 47 barrels of poultry on the grounds that it was spoiled and unfit for human consumption. Complainant argued that Section:1161 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago authorizing such conduct conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law. T ...
Bi-Metallic Co. v. Colorado
CitationBi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 36 S. Ct. 141, 60 L. Ed. 372, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1435 (U.S. Dec. 20, 1915) Brief Fact Summary. Bi-Metallic Co., the Plaintiff, challenged a uniform forty percent tax increase on the ground that it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Individuals do not have standing merely as members of the public at large or the general taxpayer population to challenge government action or imposition of taxes. ...