Running Head: CASE ANALYSIS 1

Case Analysis

Name of Student

Institutional Affiliation

Date
CASE ANALYSIS 2

Case Analysis

Case analysis could mean lot of procedural look at the event or a situation that may have

led to conflict of interests. We have three cases in this situation, “Chris Rock v. Larry the

Cable”, “W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company” and “Paris Hilton v. Lindsey

Lohan” all of which we look at them analytically to help review their likely outcome.

“Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy”

This legal dispute Chris Rock is presenting a complaint against Larry the Cable Guy who

he claims is using the materials that he (Chris Rock) wrote in his own performers without

seeking his permission and not paying as it’s supposed to be according to their agreement (Das,

Borgos-Rodriguez,& Piper, 2020, April). Research on the legality in this case suggests that,

Larry the Cable Guy has for sure breached the contract that they had made earlier. Therefore

Chris Rock is right to have him sued for an award of $500000 which states that are for the

charges he did not pay for using his materials. this has been very hard to be achieved since Larry

is always on the move an also his attempts of not responding to the mils or reading the

newspaper suggests that he may not be interested at all in paying up.

Putting in consideration all the efforts that the parties on the complainant side have made

to reach out to Larry with no success, it’s just fair that the judgment made be maintained. Larry

the Cable Guy may go on to argue that he was not properly informed, but the moment that case

was published in the local newspaper becomes humanly inevitable that Larry or anyone close or

just knows him never got wind of the suit. Therefore, for justice to be served fairly to all the

parties involved, it’s just in order to have “Larry the Cable Guy” pay up for the ignorance he

showed and “Chris Rock” be awarded for all the efforts he showed.
CASE ANALYSIS 3

“W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company”

In this suit, Reeves an employee of Central of Georgia Railway Company presents a suit

against his employer demanding a compensation for the damages he got while at work. He feels

that since he was injured while at the place of work, his employer should take responsibility for

that misfortunate (Marella, 2017). Legally, policies provided for the employee from the act,

requires that an employee ought to be compensated in a case where they get injured while at the

place of work. As such we cannot exclude this case since Reeves is an employee and was injured

while at the place of work. The testimony is not a reversible error since it in line with the

directions provided in the Federal Employers Liability Act.

“Paris Hilton v. Lindsey Lohan”

Paris went against the agreement they had made of having Lindsey parties on Friday

while Paris goes partying on Saturday. She went ahead to pry on Friday taking Lindy’s situation

for an excuse which way breach of contract and therefore, it’s just in order that Lindsey deserve

to be rewarded $100000 (Camin, Boner, Bontempo, Fauhl-Hassek, Kelly, Riedl, & Rossmann,

2017). For instance Paris resolves to get a lawyer to represent her, well she could age that she

never received a proper invitation to defend herself. The sheriff never found Paris at her pace of

residence and just doping the lawsuit in the mail x does not imply that Paris found it. Further,

Paris, could as well ague that she was out partying that’s why she never got the suit as sheriff

was not there to witness that Paris had seen the letter.
CASE ANALYSIS 4

References

Das, M., Borgos-Rodriguez, K., & Piper, A. M. (2020, April). Weaving by touch: A case

analysis of accessible making. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15).

Marella, M. R. (2017). The commons as a legal concept. Law and Critique, 28(1), 61-86.

Camin, F., Boner, M., Bontempo, L., Fauhl-Hassek, C., Kelly, S. D., Riedl, J., & Rossmann, A.

(2017). Stable isotope techniques for verifying the declared geographical origin of food

in legal cases. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 176-187.