5.   Missouri was International Shoe Corporation’s principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the…

5.Missouri was International Shoe Corporation’s principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation’s sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company’s Missouri headquarters. International Shoe’s representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation’s defense valid? Why or why not? [International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).]6.The Robinsons, residents of New York, bought a new Audi car from Seaway Volkswagen Corp., a retailer incorporated in New York and with its principal place of business there. World-Wide Volkswagen, a company incorporated in New York and doing business in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, distributed the car to Seaway. Neither Seaway nor World-Wide did business in Oklahoma, and neither company shipped cars there. The Robinsons were driving through Oklahoma when another vehicle struck their Audi in the rear. The gas tank of the Audi exploded, injuring several members of the family. The Robinsons brought a product liability suit against the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the car in an Oklahoma state court. Seaway and World-Wide argued that the Oklahoma state court did not have in personam jurisdiction over them. After the state’s trial court and supreme court held that the state did have in personam jurisdiction over Seaway and World-Wide, the companies appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the Court decided in this case? Why? [World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).]8.Le Cabaret 481, Inc., an adult entertainment corporation, wanted to open a strip club in the city of Kingston. Kingston, however, passed an ordinance prohibiting adult businesses from operating within 300 feet of any church, school, nursery, public park, or residential property. Le Cabaret 481 filed a suit against the city, arguing that the ordinance left no feasible locations in the city for an adult business and thus violated the company’s First Amendment right to free expression. The city, on the other hand, argued that Le Cabaret 481 did not present a ripe case to the court because the company had not applied for a building permit for its adult business. The company argued that it could not find a location for which it could apply for a permit. Do you think Le Cabaret 481 satisfied the ripeness requirement for its suit against the city? Why or why not? [Le Cabaret 481, Inc. v. Municipality of Kingston, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 706 (2005).]10.The plaintiffs, parents of underage children, sued the Advanced Brands and Importing Co., an importer of alcoholic beverages, seeking an injunction prohibiting advertisers from advertising its beers and damages in the form of compensation for the money spent by their children on illegal purchases of beer. The parents argued that the advertising campaign of the defendant causes underage children, like theirs, to illegally purchase the defendant’s beer. The trial court dismissed the claim, in part, based on lack of standing, and the parents appealed. Do you think the appellate court found that they had standing? Why or why not? [Alston v. Advanced Brands and Importing Co., 494 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2007).]5.General Dynamics sent out a companywide e-mail to its employees announcing a policy requiring arbitration of employment disputes. Some time after the e-mail was sent, an employee filed a lawsuit arguing that he was fired because of a disability. General Dynamics argued that the employee should be required to arbitrate his claim under the new company policy. Do you think the court required that the employee arbitrate his claim? Why? [Campbell v. General Dynamics (D. Mass. 2004).]9.The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of overtime to employees who work more than 40 hours a week unless the employee is in an “administrative” or “executive” position. Delfina Montes worked more than 40 hours a week for Shearson Lehman, and the firm did not pay her overtime on the grounds that she held an administrative position that was exempt from the FLSA overtime requirement. An arbitrator hearing this case decided in favor of Shearson Lehman. Montes petitioned the district court to vacate the arbitration board’s decision because Shearson’s attorney made the following statements before the arbitration board: “[Y]ou as an arbitrator are not guided strictly to follow case precedent”; “You have to decide whether you’re going to follow the statutes that have been presented to you, or whether you will do … what is right and just and equitable in this case.” Montes argued that the arbitrator could not simply ignore the law when arbitrating a case, which was what she felt Shearson’s attorneys had asked the arbitrator to do.p. 91Montes’s petition was denied by the district court. How do you believe the court of appeals ruled in this case? Why? [Delfina Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., 128 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir. 1997).]10.After Joel Varela died due to a work-related accident, his spouse and children filed a wrongful death action against his employee, Igloo Products Corp. Igloo filed a motion to compel arbitration under the terms of the arbitration agreement that Varela had signed in connection with his participation in an employee injury benefit plan. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. What do you think happened on appeal? Why? [In re Igloo Products Corp., 238 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App. 2007).6.During a legal search of Alvin Smith’s house, police discovered a large amount of child pornography. A subsequent police investigation revealed that Smith had taken 1,768 sexually explicit pictures of girls below the age of 18. The investigation also revealed that the children depicted in the pictures were Florida residents and that Smith, a Florida resident, took the pictures in his house. The paper on which the photographs were printed, however, came from Rochester, New York, and the photographs were processed by equipment made in California. The government prosecuted Smith for violating a federal statute prohibiting child pornography. Smith challenged his conviction on grounds that Congress overstepped its commerce clause authority because his production of child pornography did not involve or substantially affect interstate commerce. Do you think the court agreed with Smith’s argument? Why or why not? [United States v. Smith,402 F.3d 1303 (2005).]8.The Glendale Traffic Code prohibited any cars parked on public streets from having for sale signs on them. Cars containing for sale signs could only be parked on private driveways or private property. When Pagen was ordered by police to remove the for sale sign in his car that was parked on the public street in front of his house, he challenged the ordinance as violating his First Amendment rights. Do you think the court agreed or disagreed with him? Why? [Pagan v. Fruchey, 492 F 3d. 766 (6th Cir. 2007).]Need all of these in IRAC Method Issue, Rulling, application, Conclusion