Drinking games: Idaho hockey fans suing arena over beer prices AP Mar.

Drinking games: Idaho hockey fans suing arena over beer prices

AP Mar. 12, 2014

BOISE, Idaho - A handful of Idaho hockey fans sued a Boise arena on Tuesday, saying they were duped into thinking a $7 beer contains more brew than a $4 beer.

The lawsuit says CenturyLink Arena, home of the Idaho Steelheads hockey team, defrauded customers by charging $3 more for a tall, narrow cup advertised as a ''large'' that actually holds the same amount of beer as the shorter, wider cup described as a ''small.''

Four fans filed the suit Tuesday in Idaho 4th District Court against Block 22 LLC, which does business as CenturyLink Arena.

In the lawsuit, Brady Peck says he's attended at least 30 events over the past three years at the arena, including a hockey game on March 5, and that he's purchased beer each time. The other three plaintiffs say they have been attending sporting events at the venue for five years and that they bought at least one large $7 beer at each event. Each is seeking $10,000 in damages.

''While different shapes, both cup sizes hold substantially the same amount of liquid and are not large versus small in actual capacity,'' the group's attorney, Wyatt Johnson, wrote in the lawsuit. ''Defendants knowingly sold each of their beers in a similar manner at each event held at the arena where beer was sold for at least the last five years.''

The lawsuit came just two days after another hockey fan posted a video on YouTube of what the fan said was a beer purchased at CenturyLink Arena on March 8. That video shows a patron holding a large cup of beer and pouring it into an empty small cup. In both cups, the beer reaches nearly to the brim.

At the time, Eric Trapp, the president of the Idaho Steelheads hockey team and CenturyLink Arena, wrote on the team's Facebook page that the company had ordered 16-ounce and 20-ounce cups and never intended to mislead customers. "We're not in the business of defrauding our valued customers," wrote Trapp.

Flag this Question

Question 2

2 pts

What kind of case is reported in this article?

civil

criminal

both civil and criminal

Flag this Question

Question 3

2 pts

Where was this case filed?

state court

federal court

Flag this Question

Question 4

3 pts

What do the plaintiffs have to prove to win this case?

HTML Editor

Keyboard Shortcuts

 12ptParagraph

31 words

Flag this Question

Question 5

2 pts

Which best describes the amount of proof the plaintiffs must show to win in this case?

clear and convincing proof

a preponderance of the evidence

proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Flag this Question

Question 6

2 pts

If the plaintiffs are able to prove in this case that the beer seller "intentionally misled" them, can the court allow the jury to consider punitive damages? 

No, punitive damages apply only to criminal cases.

No, there is only a $3 price per beer at issue here.

Yes, intentionally misleading consumers constitutes fraud.

Flag this Question

Texas Monthly Sues Times Co. Over New Hire

By LESLIE KAUFMAN (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. APRIL 11, 2014 NYT NOW

The publisher of Texas Monthly, a popular regional magazine, filed a lawsuit on Friday against its former editor-in-chief and The New York Times Company. The magazine claims Jake Silverstein has a contract with Texas Monthly that prevents him from going to work for the New York Times.

Mr. Silverstein was named the editor of The New York Times Magazine less than two weeks ago and is set to start this spring.

The lawsuit accuses Silverstein of breach of his employment agreement with Texas Monthly. It also accuses the Times Company of inducing Mr. Silverstein to breach his contract by offering him the position knowing that Silverstein would be in violation of the terms of the contract with his former employer.

Mr. Silverstein had a three-year contract with the magazine that expires in February 2015, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Travis County, Tex. Circuit Court. Under Mr. Silverstein, Texas Monthly flourished; it was nominated for 12 National Magazine Awards during his tenure and won four.

"Mr. Silverstein's contract with Texas Monthly contains a covenant not to compete with his employer for a period of two years. The defendant's publication directly competes with Texas Monthly," said the lawsuit. "As a direct consequence of defendant's willful and intentional actions, Texas Monthly will suffer significant economic harm."

Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times Company, issued a statement calling the lawsuit "inexplicable." She said, "We believe there is no basis for a lawsuit. We look forward to having Mr. Silverstein join The Times next month and help us shape the future of the magazine."

Flag this Question

Question 7

2 pts

In the case reported in this article, the plaintiff is:

the New York Times

Jake Silverstein

Texas Monthly Magazine

Flag this Question

Question 8

2 pts

The case reported in this article is:  

criminal

civil

Flag this Question

Question 9

2 pts

The case reported in this article is: 

public

private

Flag this Question

Question 10

2 pts

Jake Silverstein is being sued for:

tort claim

breach of contract

Flag this Question

Question 11

2 pts

The New York Times is being sued for:

tort claim

breach of contract

Flag this Question

Question 12

2 pts

If the plaintiff is able to prove its claims in this case, which is a likely outcome? 

Jake Silverstein will not be able to work at the New York Times for 2 years.

Jake Silverstein will have to remain employed at Texas Monthly until his contract term ends.

Jake Silverstein will be able to work wherever he chooses, including at the New York Times.

Flag this Question

Police: Employee stole body from casket at Texas funeral home

Anusha Ghosh Roy, KENS-TV, San Antonio, Texas 1:52 p.m. EDT August 23, 2015

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A local funeral home employee has been arrested for stealing the corpse of a 25-year-old woman from a San Antonio funeral home 

 (Links to an external site.)

Links to an external site.

last week, police say.

According to investigators, the body of Julie Mott was taken from her casket at Mission Parks Funeral Chapel North after her service on Aug. 15. Roger Davis, 23, is accused of taking her body but police have yet to determine why.

"It's really quite concerning," said San Antonio police Sgt. Javier Salazar. "We found the body at his home on his living room couch."

Salazar said that after Mott's service ended around 1:30 p.m., a casket with her remains was taken into a private visitation area in the back of the funeral home. The funeral home was locked up and secured around 4:30 p.m.

Police believe during that three-hour window, Davis removed Mott's body from the casket.

"The family has been pretty distraught over this incident," Salazar said.

Mission Parks Funeral Home offered $20,000 to help catch the person responsible. Salazar said no one has claimed the funds.

"We're just thankful that our daughter's remains have been returned so we can have some closure to our grief," said Mott's father, Tim Mott.

Julie Mott died on Aug. 8 from cystic fibrosis. Davis has worked at the funeral home for only three months.

Davis is being held in the Bexar County jail on a $10,000 bond. 

Contributing: The Associated Press

Flag this Question

Question 13

2 pts

In this article, what kind of case is reported?

criminal

civil

Flag this Question

Question 14

2 pts

In this article, what kind of case is reported?

public

private

Flag this Question

Question 15

2 pts

In this article, what kind of case is reported?

federal court

state court

Flag this Question

Question 16

2 pts

Which best describes the amount of evidence the plaintiff must prove in order to win this case?

proof beyond a reasonable doubt

clear and convincing evidence

a preponderance of the evidence.

Flag this Question

Question 17

2 pts

Which is a possible outcome of the case reported in this article?

Roger Davis could be sent to jail and the family of Julie Mott could receive an award of compensatory damages.

The family of Julie Mott could receive an award of compensatory damages.

Roger Davis could be sent to jail.

Flag this Question

Family Sues Local Funeral Home for Losing Daughter's Body

SanAntonio NOW Oct. 10 2015

The parents of a San Antonio woman filed a lawsuit yesterday against the funeral home from which her body was stolen after a service in August. Tim and Amanda Mott accuse Mission Parks Funeral Chapel North of failing to properly handle and secure the body of their 25-year-old daughter Julie Mott.

The lawsuit alleges that Mission Park Funeral Chapel left an untrained and unsupervised employee to handle the body. "We can prove the employee who handled Julie's body was not trained or licensed as a funeral director in the State of Texas," said the family in the lawsuit. The family claims the funeral home was negligent in failing to properly secure the body after her service, while waiting to be interred at a local cemetery.  

Police have arrested funeral home employee Roger Davis and charged him with theft, desecration of human remains, and other charges. Davis allegedly took the body after the funeral home held a funeral service for Julie Mott. The next day, owners of the funeral home discovered the body was missing.

"We are deeply sorry for what happened and have repeatedly expressed our apologies to the family," said funeral home spokesman Felicia Rodriguez. "This unfortunate event is simply beyond our comprehension."

In the lawsuit, the family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and property damage. The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages, claiming the incident resulted from intentional behavior of the funeral home employee. The case was filed in Bexar Superior Court.  

Flag this Question

Question 18

2 pts

Referring to this article, what kind of case was filed by the family?

civil

both civil and criminal were filed by the family

criminal

Flag this Question

Question 19

2 pts

What kind of case did the family file?

tort claim

breach of contract

Flag this Question

Question 20

2 pts

What kind of case was filed by the family?

public

private

Flag this Question

Question 21

2 pts

What kind of case was filed by the family?

federal court

state court

Flag this Question

Egg company to pay $6.8M fine

Associate Press June 3, 2014

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — An Iowa company has agreed to pay $6.8 million in fines for selling old eggs with false labels and the tainted products that caused a nationwide salmonella outbreak in 2010, according to a plea agreement released Monday.

Quality Egg LLC, once one of the nation's largest egg producers, is expected to plead guilty Tuesday to charges of bribing a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector to approve sales of poor quality eggs, selling misbranded eggs and introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce. The company's owner, Austin "Jack" DeCoster, and its chief operating officer, Peter DeCoster, are expected to plead guilty to introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, a misdemeanor.

The DeCosters face sentences ranging from probation to one year in jail, according to plea agreements filed Monday by federal prosecutors. Jack DeCoster, 79, of Turner, Maine, and his 50-year-old son Peter, of Clarion, Iowa, have agreed to pay $100,000 fines each.

Quality Egg operated a network of businesses in rural northern Iowa that produced more than 1 million eggs daily. The government blamed its tainted shell eggs for a 2010 salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands and led to the unprecedented recall of 550 million eggs. Many of the eggs had been in storage for 14 to 40 days or longer.

The DeCosters have since left the egg industry.

Flag this Question

Question 22

2 pts

What kind of case is reported in this article?

civil

criminal

Flag this Question

Question 23

2 pts

What kind of case is reported in this article?

federal

state

Flag this Question

Question 24

2 pts

What kind of case is reported in this article?

private

public

Flag this Question

Question 25

3 pts

Name three types of plaintiffs that might have a civil claim against Quality Egg as a result of this incident.