Miller v. McDonald’s Corp.
150 Or.App. 274, 945 P.2d 1107  (Or.App.,1997.)

Facts: Patron of fast food restaurant operated by franchisee (3K Restaurants), who had discovered foreign object in her food, sued franchisor. The Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Eric J. Neiman, J. Pro Tem., granted summary judgment to franchisor on basis that it did not own or operate restaurant.

Issue: Whether there was evidence that would permit a jury to find McDonald’s vicariously liable for those injuries because of its relationship with 3K Restaurants?

Holding: Yes. Patron appealed, and the Court of Appeals, Warren, P.J., held that factual issues as to whether actual or apparent agency relationship existed between franchisor and franchisee precluded summary judgment.

In Re Dorrance’s Estate
309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303, cert. denied, 288 U.S. 617 (1932)

Facts: John T. Dorrance was the owner of the Campbell Soup Company, who at the time of his death owned homes in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. One property known as “Woodcrest” was located in Radnor, Pennsylvania. The other property known as “Pomona Farms” was located in Cinnaminson township, Burlington County, New Jersey. Upon his death, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania claimed that Dorrance was domiciled in Pennsylvania for the purpose of collecting estate taxes. The executors of the estate claimed that there was a mere occasional occupancy of the Radnor estate.

Issue: May expressions to the effect that a person desires to remain domiciled in one state prevail over actual removal to a residence in another state?

Holding: No.

Analysis: Pomona Farms was purchased by Dorrance in 1909. Woodcrest was purchased in 1925, and was occupied by Dorrance in December of that year, at which time the family’s entire personal effects were removed from Cinnaminson to Radnor. Thereafter, until the time of his death in 1930, Dorrance only made occasional visits to his former home in New Jersey. Before 1925, Dorrance employed ten servants in Cinnaminson, and after 1925 never more than four. Sixteen servants were employed at Woodcrest with another ten to twelve tending the grounds. The residence in Pennsylvania was consistently chosen by the Dorrance family for social events, and Dorrance traveled back and forth daily from Radnor to his office in Camden. Dorrance’s motivation for wanting to keep the appearance of domicile in New Jersey was due to their much more favorable tax treatment. The law is generally settled that as regards the determination of domicile, a person’s expression of desire may not supersede the effect of his conduct. Recitals in deeds and wills are not given particular weight in determining domicile in comparison with the evidence supplied by the daily life of the individual and his acts and conduct. Vague intentions of resuming a former domicile will not prevent the acquisition of a new one. By the act of removing his home and family from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, Dorrance acquired a domicile in the latter state. The evidence clearly establishes the legal domicile of Dorrance to be Pennsylvania, and accordingly there is due to the commonwealth an inheritance transfer tax, based upon the agreed value of his estate at the time of his death.

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co. (1930)

September 1, 2010

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306 (1950) Facts: New York had a statute (section 100-c) that provided for the administration of common trust funds. Those funds were formed by pooling numerous small trust estates into one fund for the purpose of investment administration. The accounts of the common fund were […]

Read the full article →

McQuade v. Stoneham (1934)

September 1, 2010

McQuade v. Stoneham 263 N.Y. 323, 189 N.E. 234 (Court of Appeals of New York 1934) Facts: Plaintiff McQuade purchased 70 shares in the New York Giants baseball club from Stoneham. As a part of the purchase transaction, McQuade entered into an agreement with Stoneham in which McQuade would be made treasurer of the corporation […]

Read the full article →

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc (1963)

April 30, 2010

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963) Facts: Plaintiff Greenman brought an action for damages against the retailer and the manufacturer of a Shopsmith, a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. Greenman received a Shopsmith as a Christmas present from his wife in 1955. […]

Read the full article →

Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (1944)

April 30, 2010

Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944) Facts: Escola was a waitress in a restaurant. She was putting away glass bottles of Coca-Cola when one of the bottles spontaneously exploded in her hand. She suffered a deep five-inch cut, which severed the blood vessels, nerves, and muscles […]

Read the full article →

Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980)

March 17, 2010

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York 447 U.S. 557 (1980) Facts: During a fuel shortage, the Public Service Commission of New York ordered electrical utilities in the state to cease advertising that promoted the use of electricity. Three years later, after the shortage had eased, the Commission requested […]

Read the full article →

Miller v. California (1973)

March 14, 2010

Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) Facts: Miller was convicted of knowingly distributing obscene matter under the California Penal code for mass mailings of catalogs for adult material. Issue: May a state identify and regulate obscene material without violating the First Amendment? Holding: Yes. Analysis: Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. […]

Read the full article →

Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969)

March 14, 2010

Bradenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Facts: A Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism statute for advocating and teaching the need for violent and unlawful means to bring about industrial and political reform. Issue: Did the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Holding: Yes. Analysis: The […]

Read the full article →

Schenck v. United States (1919)

March 14, 2010

Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Facts: Schenck was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and attempting to cause insubordination in the military for circulating documents which stated that the conscription act violated the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Schenck appealed. Issue: Is distributing anti-conscription literature during war time protected under the First […]

Read the full article →