We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Brandy Austin

The whole doc is available only for registered users
  • Pages: 2
  • Word count: 358
  • Category: Court Jury

A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Order Now

If the court applies the doctrine of stare decisis in the case where the members of AOL that got their information mistakenly made public are filing a suit again AOL then the court would not dismiss the suit. AOL is arguing that its forum-selection member agreement states that Virginia courts are the place where member’s disputes will be tried. However, according to the Supreme Court a forum-selection is basically irrelevant if it contravenes with a strong public policy. Stare decisis means that the court must uphold prior decisions. And in the state of California, courts have declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. Therefore, if the court applies stare decisis the suit will not be dismissed and the members of AOL can continue with their case against AOL in California.

The case involving Brandy Austin filing an action against Nestle in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota for contamination of infant formula with Enterobacter saka-zakii bacteria should be transferred from a Minnesota to a South Carolina venue. This is true because when it comes to the location of jurisdiction for a trial, venue is concerned with the most appropriate location for a trial. The venue is to be chosen based on where it may be more appropriate or convenient to hear the case, and also in the geographic neighborhood where the incident occurred or where the party resides. In this case the venue should be changed from Minnesota to South Carolina because the alleged tortuous action on the party of Nestle occurred in South Carolina and also Austin is a South Carolina resident and gave birth to her daughter in South Carolina.

I do not believe that Connecticut state court should lift the order against the request for continuous discovery for the case in which Rita Peatie filed to recover for injuries to her head, neck, and shoulder against Wal-Mart. The trial was not held until two years after the alleged injuries to Peatie’s head, neck, and shoulder, and even ten days before the trial the court was asked and granted the plaintiff four more months for discovery.

Related Topics

We can write a custom essay

According to Your Specific Requirements

Order an essay
Materials Daily
100,000+ Subjects
2000+ Topics
Free Plagiarism
All Materials
are Cataloged Well

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.

By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
Sorry, but only registered users have full access

How about getting this access

Your Answer Is Very Helpful For Us
Thank You A Lot!


Emma Taylor


Hi there!
Would you like to get such a paper?
How about getting a customized one?

Can't find What you were Looking for?

Get access to our huge, continuously updated knowledge base

The next update will be in:
14 : 59 : 59