Back to Questions
Want to know:
Jason (North Carolina) was alternating between playing Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis while flying his rocket pack. He got into an accident with Euripides (South Carolina), who was out hang gliding. When they collided, the Sega Genesis began leaking out acid which burned through the hang glider, causing Euripides to have to bail out. As soon as he landed, he contacted his lawyer and sued Jason for negligence and asserted $100,000 in damages. Jason impleaded McCollum Electronic Repairs, Inc., which has its principal place of business, and is incorporated in, South Carolina, under Rule 14. Jason claimed that in repairing his Sega Genesis, McCollum Electronic Repairs inserted acid into the console. Subsequently, Euripides amended his complaint to file a $50,000 negligence claim against McCollum Electronic Repairs, which then filed a motion to dismiss Euripides's claim against it. Under Kroger, what result?A.Granted because hearing the claim violates Article III §2.B.Denied because hearing the claim does not violate Article III §2.C.Granted because hearing the claim violates 28 U.S.C. §1332.D.Denied because it would be most efficient to hear all these related claims at once.
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- Is Anns test sufficient basis for imposition of duty of care in pure economic loss?
- covers a wide variety of injuries-provides remedies for acts that cause physical injury-or that interfere with physical security and freedom of movement
- A broker has represented a seller in the sale of the seller's property. The property was listed for sale "as is", Caveat Emptor - buyer beware. The seller provided a seller's disclosure stating there were no known problems of any kind with the property. The property was sold to a buyer who agreed to the "as is" provision. After closing the buyer moved in and immediately he discovered many serious problems with the property. He had an inspection done, and the inspector deter mined that the problems were not "new", but rather most were long standing. The buyer sued the seller and was able to have the sale reversed. Is the broker entitled to keep the commission earned on this sale?