Dr.

Jennifer Smith’s Accounting 568-01W “Business Law for Accountants”

Week 2 Homework

Case Brief: Abdouch v. Lopez

Facts:
Helen Abdouch (of Nebraska) filed suit against an out-of-state Ken Lopez, and his rare book
store company, Ken Lopez Bookseller (KLB) of Massachusetts in 2011. Abdouch sued Lopez
and KLB for violating her privacy rights. The book was personally signed by Richard Yates to
Abdouch in 1963. Lopez came into possession of the book in 2009 and later sold it in 2011 (to an
individual in Georgia, USA). He used the inscription as part of his online advisement of the
book.

Procedural History:
District court ruled it did not have personal jurisdiction over Lopez and KLB. Abdouch appealed,
claimed that the court gained personal jurisdiction when her representative contacted Lopez and
objected to his use of Abdouch’s name and identity in KLB’s online advertisement for the book.

Issue:
Is an online advertisement and a representative’s contact sufficient enough to create for courts
specific and personal jurisdiction over an out of state person or business?

Decisions (Holding):
The court ruled that a telephone call rom Abdouch’s representative to Lopez is not sufficient
enough for personal jurisdiction purposes.

Reasons:
Abdouch could not prove that KLB’s website advertisement was not directly targeted at residents
of Nebraska. Therefore, the defendants could not be bought into a Nebraska court. The result of
this case was that personal jurisdiction can be gained over a party whose “(a) conduct was
expressly aimed at the forum state, (b) knowing that the harmful effects would be felt primarily
there and (c) that the defendants would reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there".

Case Brief: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Facts: The Citizens United is a nonprofit organization with some of its funding coming from for-
profit corporations. In 2008 the organization released an anti-Hillary Clinton (then, a Senator and
a Presidential candidate) feature film in theaters, later on DVD. They continued by releasing
numerous short anti-Clinton ads.

Procedural History:
The U.S. Supreme Court in order to resolve the case ordered the parties to provide additional
arguments and to file supplemental briefs if either or both, McConnell v. Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce cases should be overturned
Both cases resulted in the upholding of the "electioneering communications" section of
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

Issue:
Are elements of the 2002 BCRA unconstitutional? The regulation forbids ads either for or
against a candidate within 30 days of the primary elections and within 60 days of the general
election. Another issue of the case was, should there be restrictions on the amount of funds spent
to influence the public that endorse or dissuade them of a candidate?

Decisions (Holding):
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The court maintained that the
Government may not prevent political speech solely on the speaker’s corporate identity.

Reasons:
Corporations, regardless of their for-profit or non-profit status, have the same Constitutional
rights (i.e. First Amendment) as individuals. The court held that the Freedom of Speech has no
monetary limitations, corporations are now able to spend as much as they choose in their
political agendas to endorse a candidate or criticize a candidate.
Case Brief: Durham v. McDonald’s Restaurant of Oklahoma

Facts:
Carman Durham of Oklahoma filed suit against McDonalds Restaurants of Oklahoma for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, for the events that occurred in 2006, which caused
Durham. Dunham alleged that his supervising manager at the time denied Durham three of his
requests to take prescribed anti-seizure medication; and on the final request called Durham a
called a "fucking retard".

Procedural History:
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant (McDonald’s). Durham next appealed to the
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Durham next
appealed to The Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Issue:
In order to prove the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress the McDonald’s
supervising manager’s actions must be proved that the manager acted intentionally or recklessly,
that the manager’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; it also must b’ proved that the
manager’s conduct caused Durham emotional distress and that the emotional distress was severe.
An additional issue the case posed was Durham discriminated against due to his learning
disability and seizure disorder? Durham sought damages under the protection of the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Decisions (Holding):
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed summary judgment in favor of McDonald's; case was
remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons:
The court could not find evidence that the supervising manager’s conduct was “extreme and
outrageous”. The court established a threshold to prove intentional infliction of emotional
distress based on the case Kraszewski v. Baptist, where a party’s conduct goes to such an
extremity that they “go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and which is viewed as atrocious
and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”. The court also ruled that under ADA
guidelines, Durham did not have an eligible disability to be protected under the ADA. The court
held that Durham did not demonstrate that he was disabled and no evidence was presented to
McDonald's where they perceived him as being disabled. Durham was denied recovery on the
ADA discrimination based claims.