Research Task #1 Find and read the case Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (

Research Task #1
<
Find and read the case Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), then answer the following questions:
<
1. Who was the plaintiff and who was the defendant in the case?
<
2. Was this a federal or state case? Explain why.
<
3. Was this a criminal or civil case? Explain why.
<
4. What were the facts of the case?
<
5. What law or laws were involved in this case?
<
6. What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide? Be sure to explain the court’s decision and the
<
reasoning behind the decision.
<
7. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why?
<
8. Your friend owns a business in Arizona that sells spices and seasonings that they grow in their
<
greenhouse. They have been successful in selling their product at local farmer’s markets and grocery
<
stores. Now, they believe they are ready to expand to online sales and to small grocery stores in
<
Nevada, New Mexico, and southern California. They know they should think about how the law
<
impacts their business but they are unsure in what ways. So, your friend comes to you for help since
<
you have taken a business law class. Help your friend out by explaining the concept of interstate
<
commerce and how the Commerce Clause may impact the business. Also, explain personal jurisdiction
<
and minimum contacts, as well as what courts would potentially have personal jurisdiction over your
<
friend’s business if the business is sued.
<
Research Task #2 
<
Find and read the case Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891), then answer the following
<
<
https://cite.case.law/wis/80/523/ 
<
<
questions:
<
1. What tort is at issue in this case?
<
2. Was Putney’s act intentional?
<
3. What were the scope of Vosburg’s injuries?
<
4. According to the court, why should Putney, the 11-year old, who kicked him so lightly that Vosburg
<
didn’t even feel it, be responsible for his injuries?
<
5. Who won?
<
6. This is the case of the eggshell plaintiff. The idea is that if we (as a society, or as jurors in a given
<
case) are called upon to decide who should be responsible for making those injuries right, for
<
fixing what was broken, does it makes sense that we hold the wrongdoer – Putney – accountable,
<
rather than the plaintiff, Vosburg, who was just sitting in class at the time for the full extent of the
<
injuries that were causally related to the initial act? Why or why not?
<
7. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?