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., a.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. p. 91
Montes'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,

5. 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