Kasky v. Nike Inc.27 Cal.4th 939

Need to write a case brief about “CASE  Kasky v. Nike Inc.27 Cal.4th 939 Case

The brief should include

1. Facts

2. Procedural History

3. Issues

4. Reasoning/Analysis

Decisions/Holding

IMPORTANT NOTES THAT WILL GUIDE YOU WHEN WRITING THIS ASSIGNMENT

Kasky v. Nike Inc.27 Cal.4th 939

Nike Inc. v. Kasky, 27 Cal.4th 939, 946 (2017). In this California appellate court case, the trial court found that a value-sharing agreement between Kasky and his former employer Nike Inc. was not fully enforceable under California law because it did not address all of the parties’ rights and obligations in the employment relationship. After being convicted of violating this agreement’s terms by performing work on his own time without permission (and without compensation), Kasky appealed both his conviction and sentence on grounds that these findings were erroneous and required reversal or modification by an appellate court before sentencing could take place. The appellate court agreed with both claims: namely that there was no evidence tying back to previous agreements between the parties regarding how money should be split when someone leaves an employer; therefore, revoking or restricting what had previously been agreed upon by way of a value-sharing agreement would violate California law

Background

In Kasky v. Nike Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2003), the California Supreme Court held that a customer’s claim for breach of implied warranty under California law was not preempted by federal antitrust laws. The court also held that California consumers who purchase shoes from an out-of-state retailer do not have standing to bring claims against manufacturers based on unfair competition under state law; these claims must instead be brought directly against the manufacturer in federal court or through another appropriate forum (i.e., class action).

Nike Inc. v. Kasky, 27 Cal.4th 939, 946

The case involved a group of anti-Nike protesters who sued the company for allegedly polluting a river with toxic chemicals. The Supreme Court held that Nike Inc. was entitled to recover attorney fees from a group of anti-Nike protesters who sued the company for allegedly polluting a river with toxic chemicals.

In its opinion, the court wrote: “A party who voluntarily sues another person has no duty to disclose all relevant facts relating to either his own conduct or that of others whose conduct might affect or be affected by his own.”

Trial Court’s Findings of Fact Backed by Evidence at Trial

The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by evidence at trial.

The Court of Appeal held that Kasky’s failure to prove he had been injured in the course of employment precluded recovery for non-economic damages and trebled punitive damages.

Nike’s Objections to the Trial Court’s Findings of Fact

Nike’s objections to the trial court’s findings of fact were based on two grounds: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support those findings, and (2) that there was insufficient evidence in support of those findings. In response, Kasky argued that even if it were true that no evidence existed for some or all of the trial court’s factual determinations, such a finding would not violate any constitutional right under California law.

Nike argued that it had not been given notice by Kasky before filing this lawsuit that he intended to sue them under California’s unfair competition law (unfair competition), which provides an avenue through which individuals can sue businesses they believe have engaged in conduct tortious toward them—including unfair competition claims. However, Nike also pointed out that it had advised Kasky prior to filing suit against Nike if he wanted information about his rights under Section 17200 et seq., including what his method of recovery would be should he win his case at trial level (i.e., whether damages could be awarded).

The Trial Court’s Decision Rolled Back and Sentenced Kasky to Six Months’ Imprisonment in EAJA Case

The trial court’s decision was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

In its decision on remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Kasky had been convicted of one count of violating Penal Code section 502/Cal. Pen. Code § 594(a), which prohibits defacing public property with graffiti or other inscribed matter. However, it reversed his conviction because there was insufficient evidence that he intended to damage or destroy property (Penal Code § 502/Cal. Pen., § 594(b)). As such, it concluded that no crime had been committed under Penal Code section 502/Cal.. Pen., § 594(a).

The Court of Appeal also held that Kasky had not committed any crimes under Penal Code sections 13340-13342 because he had intended only minor acts which did not constitute vandalism under these statutes: “We find nothing in these two statutes requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to intent before conviction.”27 Cal 4th at 604-05

The CA Appellate Courts May Reinstate a Finding of Fact From a Value-Sharing Agreement That Was Rolled Back by the Trial Court

The CA Appellate Courts may reinstate a finding of fact from a value-sharing agreement that was rolled back by the trial court.

The CA Appellate Courts may not reinstate a finding of fact from a value-sharing agreement that was rolled back by the trial court.

Conclusion

A finding of fact that was rolled back by the trial court can be reinstated in an EAJA case if it is supported by evidence that is not based on speculation or conjecture.

WOULD YOU LIKE A CUSTOM ESSAY JUST FOR YOU? CLICK “Continue to Order” or “Get a Quote” below to continue.

Get Assignment Help- Confidentially!

***Absolutely NO Plagiarism

***All writing is original.