Case Brief

Choose three of the four cases and follow the brief format file. They must be in different word files.I have attached them.They must be zero plagiarism.The requirements are in the brief format file, and you must follow.
brief_format.pdf

burger_king_corp_v_rudzewicz.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Case Brief
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

jones_v_star_credit_corp.pdf

stark_ex_rel_jacobsen_v_ford_motor_co.pdf

tower_city_grain_co_v_richman.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

BRIEF FORMAT
Your name:
Date:
NAME OF CASE:
Facts:
Relevant facts of case. This section should be between 5 and 7 sentences.
Issue:
The question presented by the case.
Holding:
For which party did the court rule?
Rule of Law: One sentence that states the general principle of law, i.e., “Accountants are not liable
to third parties if they were unaware of the existence of a business relationship.” OR
“The police are prohibited from conducting warrantless searches of your home.” The
Rule of Law should not be phrased in terms of the parties to a particular case.
Incorrect: “The South Orange Police had no right to search Mark Smith’s home for
drugs, therefore, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Smith.” This type of
statement is appropriate for the “Holding” section of the Brief.
Reasoning:
From where did the court derive its reasoning? Another case? The U.S. Constitution?
This section should be between 3 and 5 sentences.
BRIEFS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE DATE ASSIGNED FOR COMPLETION.
GENERALLY, THEY SHOULD BE ONE, TYPE-WRITTEN PAGE.
Paraphrase and condense the cases in your own style. Spelling and grammar count. Any deviation
from the above format results in a lower grade.
Please, proofread your work! Very important!
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
treated as a petition for writ of certiorari,
which would be granted. 28 U.S.C.A. §
1254(2).
KeyCite Yellow Flag – Negative Treatment
Disagreement Recognized by TXU Energy Retail Co., LP v. Emanuel
Medical Center, Inc., N.D.Tex., May 28, 2003
105 S.Ct. 2174
Supreme Court of the United States
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
BURGER KING CORPORATION, Appellant
v.
Parties cannot stipulate to a particular
construction of state law, and thereby obtain
jurisdiction over appeal to Supreme Court,
where state law might, in fact, be in harmony
with the Federal Constitution; Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction is properly invoked only
where a Court of Appeals has squarely held
that the statute is unconstitutional on its face
or as applied and jurisdiction does not lie if
the decision might rest on other grounds. 28
U.S.C.A. § 1254(2).
John RUDZEWICZ.
No. 83–2097.
|
Argued Jan. 8, 1985.
|
Decided May 20, 1985.
Franchisor brought action against franchisee alleging
breach of franchise obligations and trademark
infringement. The United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered judgment in favor of
franchisor and franchisee appealed. The Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, 724 F.2d 1505,reversed and
denied rehearing, 729 F.2d 1468. The Supreme Court,
Justice Brennan, held that: (1) where it was not clear that
Court of Appeals had found Florida long-arm statute
unconstitutional as applied, Supreme Court did not
have jurisdiction over appeal; (2) jurisdictional statement
would be treated as petition for writ of certiorari; and (3)
exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over Michigan franchisee
in Florida did not offend due process.
Federal Courts
Particular Cases, Contexts, and
Questions
16 Cases that cite this headnote
[3]
Constitutional Law
Non-residents in general
Due process clause protects an individual’s
liberty in not being subject to the binding
judgments of a forum with which he has
established no meaningful contacts, ties, or
relations; although the protection operates to
restrict state power, it is ultimately a function
of the individual liberty interest preserved
by the due process clause rather than a
function of federalism concern. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14.
Reversed and remanded.
Justice Stevens dissented and filed an opinion in which
Justice White joined.
494 Cases that cite this headnote
West Headnotes (27)
[1]
Federal Courts
Proceedings to Obtain Review
Where it was unclear whether Court of
Appeals actually held statute unconstitutional
as applied to the circumstances of the case,
jurisdiction did not properly lie in the
Supreme Court by appeal and appeal would
be dismissed, with the jurisdictional statement
[4]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
Federal Courts
Related contacts and activities; specific
jurisdiction
Where forum seeks to assert specific
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
who has not consented to suit there,
fair-warning requirement is satisfied if the
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
defendant has purposefully directed his
activities at residence of the forum and the
litigation results from injuries that arise out of
or relate to those activities.
forum for redressing injuries inflicted by outof-state actors and, where those individuals
purposefully derive benefit from their
interstate activities, it may be unfair to
allow them to escape having to account in
other states for the consequences that arise
proximately from such activities and, for
those reasons, forum may legitimately exercise
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who
purposefully directs activities toward forum
residents.
2724 Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
Constitutional Law
Consent; forum-selection clauses
Contracts
Agreement as to place of bringing suit;
forum selection clauses
Where forum selection provisions have
been obtained through freely negotiated
agreements and are not unreasonable and
unjust, their enforcement does not offend due
process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
1069 Cases that cite this headnote
[9]
Constitutional touchstone in long-arm
jurisdiction cases is whether the defendant
purposefully established minimum contacts in
the forum state.
273 Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
Federal Courts
Manufacture, Distribution, and Sale of
Products
Publisher who distributes magazines in a
distant state may fairly be held accountable
in that forum for damages resulting therefrom
an allegedly defamatory story.
2931 Cases that cite this headnote
[10]
Foreseeability of causing injury in another
state is not a sufficient benchmark for
exercising personal jurisdiction; foreseeability
which is critical to due process analysis is
that the defendant’s conduct and connection
with the forum state are such that he should
reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there.
Federal Courts
Unrelated contacts and activities; general
jurisdiction
Parties who reach out beyond one state
and create continuing relationships and
obligations with citizens of another state are
subject to regulation and sanctions in the
other state for the consequences of their
activities.
339 Cases that cite this headnote
[8]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
State generally has a manifest interest in
providing its residents with a convenient
Constitutional Law
Non-residents in general
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
11 Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
998 Cases that cite this headnote
[11]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
Purposeful availment requirement for longarm jurisdiction insures that defendant will
not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as the
result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
contacts or the unilateral activity of another
party or a third person.
Once it has been decided that a defendant has
purposefully established minimum contacts
with the forum state, the contacts may
be considered in light of other factors to
determine whether the assertion of personal
jurisdiction would comport with fair play and
substantial justice.
3246 Cases that cite this headnote
[12]
Federal Courts
Nature, number, frequency, and extent of
contacts and activities
Jurisdiction is proper where the contacts of
the defendant proximately result from actions
by the defendant himself which create a
substantial connection with the forum.
4262 Cases that cite this headnote
[17]
Where defendant who purposefully has
directed his activities at forum residents
seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present
a compelling case that the presence of
some other considerations would render
jurisdiction unreasonable.
721 Cases that cite this headnote
[13]
Federal Courts
Nature, number, frequency, and extent of
contacts and activities
So long as it creates a substantial connection
with the forum, even a single act can support
jurisdiction.
1487 Cases that cite this headnote
[18]
242 Cases that cite this headnote
[14]
127 Cases that cite this headnote
[19]
765 Cases that cite this headnote
[15]
So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are
purposefully directed toward residents of
another state, absence of physical contacts
cannot defeat personal jurisdiction there.
[16]
Constitutional Law
Non-residents in general
Federal Courts
Nature, number, frequency, and extent of
contacts and activities
Individual’s contact with an out-of-state
party cannot alone automatically establish
sufficient minimum contacts in the other
party’s home forum to permit exercise of
jurisdiction in that forum.
Federal Courts
Commercial Contacts and Activities;
Contracts and Transactions
287 Cases that cite this headnote
Courts
Construction and application of
particular rules
Jurisdictional rules may not be employed
in such a way as to make litigation so
gravely difficult and inconvenient that a
party is unfairly at a severe disadvantage in
comparison to his opponent.
Federal Courts
Business contacts and activities;
transacting or doing business
When defendant has availed himself of the
privilege of conducting business in a forum,
jurisdiction cannot be avoided merely because
the defendant did not physically enter the
forum state.
Federal Courts
Weight and sufficiency
370 Cases that cite this headnote
[20]
Federal Courts
Contract disputes
Parties’ negotiations and contemplated future
consequences, along with the terms of the
contract and the parties’ actual course of
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
dealing, must be evaluated in determining
whether the defendant has purposefully
established minimum contacts with the forum.
the country; absent compelling consideration,
defendant who has purposefully derived
commercial benefit from his affiliations in a
forum may not defeat jurisdiction there simply
because of his adversary’s greater net wealth.
2687 Cases that cite this headnote
[21]
563 Cases that cite this headnote
Federal Courts
Investment, finance, and credit
Michigan franchisee who deliberately reached
out beyond his state of residence and
negotiated with a Florida franchisor for
purchase of a long-term franchise and the
manifold benefits that would derive from
affiliation with the nationwide organization,
who entered into a carefully structured 20year relationship which envisioned continuing
and wide-reaching contacts with Florida, who
accepted regulation of his business from
the Miami headquarters of the franchisor,
and who was required to make monthly
payments to the franchisor in Miami
was constitutionally subject to long-arm
jurisdiction in Florida in dispute arising out
of the franchise arrangement. West’s F.S.A. §
48.193(1)(g); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
[24]
Federal Courts
In general; convenience, fairness, and
interest of justice
To the extent that it is inconvenient for a
party who has minimum contacts with a
forum to litigate there, the considerations can
be accommodated through change of venue,
rather than denial of jurisdiction.
8 Cases that cite this headnote
[25]
Federal Courts
Particular Contexts and Causes of Action
Inconvenience which Michigan franchisee
would suffer from litigating franchise dispute
in Florida was not so substantial as to render it
unconstitutional to subject him to jurisdiction
in Florida.
499 Cases that cite this headnote
32 Cases that cite this headnote
[22]
Federal Courts
Contract disputes
Although choice-of-law provision on a
contract, standing alone, would be insufficient
to confer jurisdiction in forum whose law is
to apply, choice-of-law provision should not
be ignored in considering whether defendant
has purposefully invoked the benefits and
protections of a state’s law.
[26]
Evidence sustained trial court’s finding
that franchisee was not the victim
of misrepresentation, fraud, or duress
in connection with franchise agreement
rendering it unconstitutional to subject him to
jurisdiction in franchisor’s state of residence.
142 Cases that cite this headnote
[23]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
State of residence of nationwide franchisor
had more than a negligible interest
in
providing
a
convenient
forum,
notwithstanding the franchisor’s size and
ability to conduct litigation anywhere in
Federal Courts
Weight and sufficiency
24 Cases that cite this headnote
[27]
Federal Courts
Purpose, intent, and foreseeability;
purposeful availment
Quality and nature of an interstate transaction
may sometimes be so random, fortuitous, or
attenuated that it cannot fairly be said that
the potential defendant should reasonably
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
anticipate being haled into court in another
jurisdiction.
2085 Cases that cite this headnote
**2176 Syllabus *
Appellant is a Florida corporation whose principal offices
are in Miami. It conducts most of its restaurant business
through a franchise operation, under which franchisees
are licensed to use appellant’s trademarks and service
marks in leased standardized restaurant facilities for a
period of 20 years. The governing contracts provide
that the franchise relationship is established in Miami
and governed by Florida law, and call for payment
of all required monthly fees and forwarding of all
relevant notices to the Miami headquarters. The Miami
headquarters sets policy and works directly with the
franchisees in attempting to resolve major problems. Dayto-day monitoring of franchisees, however, is conducted
through district offices that in turn report to the
Miami headquarters. Appellee is a Michigan resident
who, along with another Michigan resident, entered
into a 20-year franchise contract with appellant to
operate a restaurant in Michigan. Subsequently, when the
restaurant’s patronage declined, the franchisees fell behind
in their monthly payments. After extended negotiations
among the franchisees, the Michigan district office,
and the Miami headquarters proved unsuccessful in
solving **2177 the problem, headquarters terminated
the franchise and ordered the franchisees to vacate the
premises. They refused and continued to operate the
restaurant. Appellant then brought a diversity action
in Federal District Court in Florida, alleging that the
franchisees had breached their franchise obligations and
requesting damages and injunctive relief. The franchisees
claimed that, because they were Michigan residents and
because appellant’s claim did not “arise” within Florida,
the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
But the court held that the franchisees were subject
to personal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida’s long-arm
statute, which extends jurisdiction to any person, whether
or not a citizen or resident of the State, who breaches
a contract in the State by failing to perform acts that
the contract requires to be performed there. Thereafter,
the court entered judgment against the franchisees on
the merits. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
“[j]urisdiction under these circumstances would offend
the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due
process.”
Held: The District Court’s exercise of jurisdiction
pursuant to Florida’s long-arm statute did not violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp.
2181–2190.
*463 (a) A forum may assert specific jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant where an alleged injury arises out
of or relates to actions by the defendant himself that are
purposefully directed toward forum residents, and where
jurisdiction would not otherwise offend “fair play and
substantial justice.” Jurisdiction in these circumstances
may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not
physically enter the forum. Pp. 2181–2185.
(b) An individual’s contract with an out-of-state party
cannot alone automatically establish sufficient minimum
contacts in the other party’s home forum. Instead, the
prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences,
along with the terms of the contract and the parties’ actual
course of dealing, must be evaluated to determine whether
a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts
within the forum. Pp. 2185–2186.
(c) Here, appellee established a substantial and continuing
relationship with appellant’s Miami headquarters, and
received fair notice from the contract documents and
the course of dealings that he might be subject to suit
in Florida. The District Court found that appellee is an
“experienced and sophisticated” businessman who did not
act under economic duress or disadvantage imposed by
appellant, and appellee has pointed to no other factors
that would establish the unconstitutionality of Florida’s
assertion of jurisdiction. Pp. 2186–2190.
724 F.2d 1505 (CA11 1984), reversed and remanded.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Joel S. Perwin argued the cause and filed briefs for
appellant.
Thomas H. Oehmke argued the cause and filed a brief for
appellee.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
5
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 53 USLW 4541
Opinion
Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Florida’s long-arm statute extends
jurisdiction to “[a]ny person, whether or not a citizen
or resident of this state,” who, inter alia, “[b]reach
[es] a contract in this state by failing to perform
acts required by the contract to be performed in this
state,” so long as the cause of action *464 arises
from the alleged contractual breach. Fla.Stat. § 48.193(1)
(g) (Supp.1984). The United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, sitting in diversity,
relied on this provision in exercising personal jurisdiction
over a Michigan resident who allegedly had breached a
franchise agreement with a Florida corporation by failing
to make required payments in Florida. The question
presented is whether this exercise of long-arm jurisdiction
offended “traditional conception[s] of fair play and
substantial justice” embodied in the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. International Shoe Co. v.
**2178 Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160,
90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
I
A
Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation whose
principal offices are in Miami. It is one of the world’s
largest restaurant organizations, with over 3,000 outlets
in the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
8 foreign nations. Burger King conducts approximately
80% of its business through a franchise operation that
the company styles the “Burger King System”—“a
comprehensive restaurant format and operating system
for the sale of uniform and quality food products.”
App. 46. 1 Burger King licenses its franchisees to use
its trademarks and service marks for a period of 20
years and leases standardized restaurant facilities to
them for the same term. In addition, franchisees acquire
a variety of proprietary information concerning the
“standards, specifications, procedures and methods for
operating *465 a Burger King Restaurant.? …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15