Miraculous Recovery of Cinnamon Beach : Personal Jurisdiction and Due Process / Melony Sacopulos.

Format:

Book

Author/Creator:

Sacopulos, Melony, author.

Series:

SAGE business cases.

SAGE business cases

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Business ethics Case studies.

Business ethics.

Physical Description:

1 online resource

Place of Publication:

London : Society for Case Research, 2025.

Summary:

This critical incident relates to the facts surrounding the thoroughbred racehorse, Cinnamon Beach (CB), that would support Constitutional Due Process minimum contacts relating to interstate personal jurisdiction. Nolan, McCall, and Everett had an agreement that conferred on Everett a 30 percent ownership interest and an equal share in net winnings in exchange for Everett sustaining the costs to maintain, train, and race Cinnamon Beach (Complaint, 2012). Nolan and McCall were Indiana residents and Everett was a New York resident (Complaint, 2012; Affidavit of Scott Everett, 2014). After the agreement was struck, Everett hired a horse shipper to transport CB to Florida, where Everett worked to train the horse (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 2013). Pursuant to Everett's report that Cinnamon Beach had suffered a career-ending injury while in Florida, Nolan instructed Everett to find the horse a good home (Complaint, 2012). Everett then transported CB to New York and placed the horse with Judi Simek, who incurred the costs to care for Cinnamon Beach (Affidavit of Judi Simek, 2015). Simek was a New York resident (Affidavit of Judi Simek, 2015). After a period of veterinary treatment and convalescence, Cinnamon Beach healed well enough to race again, and Simek and Everett formed an arrangement by which they were co-owners of the horse and Everett trained and raced the horse (Affidavit of Scott Everett, 2014). While Simek and Everett owned CB, the horse won in excess of 133,000 (Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 2013). Upon learning that Cinnamon Beach was racing again, Nolan and McCall sued Everett and Simek in Indiana state court to recover 70 percent of the winnings (Complaint, 2012). Everett and Simek claimed that as New York residents, they were not subject to the personal jurisdiction of Indiana courts (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 2013). The critical incident is appropriate for courses in business law, the legal environment of business, constitutional law, public policy, and ethics.

Notes:

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

ISBN:

9781071981467

1071981463

OCLC:

1483993273