Case Citation: Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (CA2 1997). Parties: Bensusan Restaurant Corp., Plaintiff / Appellant Richard B. King, Defendant / Appellee Facts: The plaintiff, Bensusan, the owner of a New York jazz club called “The Blue Note”, brought suit against King for trademark infringement. Bensusan owned all trademark rights to the name “The Blue Note” and the name mark was federally registered. King had been doing business in another club located in Missouri under the same name. King also had a website called “The Blue Note” which contained advertisements for a cabaret, ticket sales, and included a disclaimer telling customers not to get the Missouri club confused with the New York club of the same name. Procedural History: Bensusan brought suit against King in the United States District Court for the Southern …show more content…
Holding: No. New York does not have personal jurisdiction over King, making him ineligible to be charged under New York’s long-arm statute. Reasoning: On Appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that the long-arm statute in New York had no bearing on King and that there that King was not subject to the state of New York’s personal jurisdiction. The court held that King did not commit a tortious act within New York, did not cause injury to Bensusan within New York, and King did not reasonably expect his club to have consequences in New York and/or derive substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.1 In addition, King committed no tort while present in New York state. Decision: Affirmed. The dismissal was affirmed due to the fact the defendant was not physically present in New York state when the defendant allegedly committed the torts, therefore the defendant was not subject to the personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute of New
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963); Clarence Earl Gideon is the plaintiff, and Louie L. Wainwright is the defendant.
Senior Management of PepsiCo is evaluating the potential acquisition of two companies – Carts of Colorado and California Pizza Kitchen – in order to expand the company’s restaurant business. If indeed PepsiCo decides to pursue the acquisition of one or both, they must decide how to align each of these business units in its historically decentralized management approach and how to forge relationships between the acquired business units and existing business units. In their evaluation, Senior Management is faced with the question of whether the necessary capital investment in order to purchase one or both of the businesses can be profitable for each of the acquired business units, but must also take into consideration that the additional business units will not hinder the profitability of the existing business units.
In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will discuss facts, main legal issues, majority decisions and reasons for the dissent. This case took place on September 26, 1966 in the court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J wrote the majority decision, while Judge Keating wrote the dissenting decision in the case. I will be applying Natural Law and Legal Realism to the case to argue my position, and ultimately prove that the theory of Natural Law is more applicable to the case.
Brown versus the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas was perhaps the most renowned cases of its time. The thirteen plaintiffs on behalf on their children filed a class action lawsuit against the district in order for it to reverse its policy of racial segregation. One named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, an admired African American member of his community, complained that his young daughter had to walk six blocks to the bus stop to attend her all black school, while the white school was closer. After the victory, The Board of Edu...
I chose four different local restaurants of Wheeling, WV. These particular four restaurants had similar ratings and are well known by many people. Often, these four restaurants can be among the favorite restaurants of many people. Therefore, I wanted to evaluate them against my criteria to see which restaurant is actually the best.
An extensive situational analysis and exploration of alternatives to current business practices at Chez Moi Restaurant has cumulated in the recommendation to utilize the $30,000 bond as presented in Exhibit 3. The largest recommendations are retrofitting the facility for counter-service and providing a year-long management course to current business owner, Ms. Mayda McFadden. A training course for Ms. Mcfadden will allow her to more effectively oversee operations at CMR. Although this presents the risks of occupying value time causing McFadden to experience burnout, an online course is the best option to enable McFadden to continue overseeing business improvements, while investing in both herself and her business, at her own pace. It is estimated
Emile Fortin quitted his accounting job and started a restaurant in 2008. His whole family was all involved in his business and helped the restaurant keep operating and become better. Emile’s wife Gillian is in charge of everything about food. They have three sons. The oldest son Alan helped Gillian with the purchases. John did some job about cleaning. Their youngest son Robert, who was a busboy on the weekend and then started serving tables, is the one who has stayed with the restaurant work and hopes get more involved about restaurant management. Robert decided to pursue a bachelor degree in business administration after graduating from high school. During his freshman year, he started dating a young lady called Sylvia. Sylvia always helped the restaurant voluntarily
Restaurants ,fast food joints ,and five-star shops are everywhere;but that does not make them the same .There's a clear separation between companies and owners right away. Some people might not think the food is great but they are willing to go back due to the service perhaps. In this case Johnny Rockets restaurant has been a game changer for me, found in various places around the United States and in this case in Brownsville Texas. With its amazing food, service, and fun entertainment it makes it a hard place to forget.
The case later became known as the Dred Scott v. Sandford. At first the case was taken into a federal court with John Emerson as the defendant. Scott had lost the case in the state court. Shortly thereafter John Emerson died. Mrs. Emerson, now a widowed wife, left Dred Scott with John Sanford, who was a New York citizen. John Sanford was sued with the help of the Blows family in a federal court. Eventually, the case was appealed in the Supreme Court. Roger B. Taney, which you will learn later, had an integral impact on the decision. Read on to see more about one of the most vile and dismal days of all time.
McDonald's Corporation is the largest fast-food operator in the World and was originally formed in 1955 after Ray Kroc pitched the idea of opening up several restaurants based on the original owned by Dick and Mac McDonald. McDonald's went public in 1965 and introduced its flagship product, the Big Mac, in 1968. Today, McDonald's operates more than 30,000 restaurants in over 100 countries and have one of the world's most widely known brand names. McDonald's sales hit $57 billion company-wide and over $25 billion in the United States in 2006 (S&P).
Belgrave’s appeal reached the Second Circuit where acting Justice Anthony A. Scaprino Jr. sent the matter back to DOCS saying they overlooked their own regulations denying Belgrave’s request. The matter had already been solved in the precedent of Benjamin vs. Coughlin, 905 F2d 571, where the Second Circuit had agreed with a lower court ruling that denying a Rastafarian’s request to wear a crown did not break the First Amendment, ruling that is was an interest of security (Anderson, 2).
McDonald was founded by two brothers named Richard and Maurice McDonald in 1937 in California. This biggest global fast food chained arrived in Malaysia 43 years later in December 1980. McDonald Corp. gave their license to Golden Arches Sdn. Bhd. to open McDonald`s Restaurant in Malaysia. McDonalds have created over 7000 job opportunity ever since they arrive in Malaysia over the years. Today, there are more than 33000 McDonald`s restaurants in 119 countries.