Amendment 7

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
____________________________________________________________

This amendment gives you the right to a jury trial in any civil case exceeding the value of 20 dollars.
____________________________________________________________
10/26/2009

I'm Not Lovin' It: Hearing Impaired Woman Sues McDonald's Over Drive-Thru Refusal

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

OMAHA, Neb. — A hearing-impaired woman filed a federal lawsuit against a local McDonald's, saying workers refused to let her order food at the drive-thru window.

Karen Tumeh of Lincoln says they insisted she either order at the electronic speaker along the drive-thru lane or come inside to order.

Tumeh wears a hearing aid but still cannot hear while using the drive-thru ordering box at fast-food restaurants, according to the lawsuit.

At least three times since September 2007 workers at a Lincoln McDonald's refused to let her place her order at the drive-thru window, Tumeh said.

In denying her service, McDonald's violated the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, she said. Tumeh's lawsuit seeks to force McDonald's to make accommodations for hearing-impaired people to order food in restaurant drive-thrus.

She also seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees. McDonald's corporate headquarters did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday by The Associated Press.

Tumeh is physically capable of walking inside to order, but that's not the point, her attorney, Shirley Ann Mora James, said Tuesday.

"She has children who are autistic, and if they're having difficulties, it would make it problematic for her," Mora James said.

"It's not appropriate for a hearing-impaired person to be forced to go inside because of their disability, when ... other drive-thru, fast-food restaurants have a policy to allow deaf and hard-of-hearing people to order at the drive-thru window."

Other McDonald's restaurants in Lincoln have accommodated Tumeh, Mora James said.

"We have attempted to resolve this on many occasions and have unfortunately been unable to resolve this," Mora James said. "So we were forced into litigation."

Thoughts:

The women suing mcdonalds is an example of a civil case. A civil case is when a person or persons sues another person or persons or businesses.

____________________________________________________________

10/26/2009

Kmart sues Martha Stewart Living over royalties

DETROIT (Reuters) — Kmart Holding (KMRT) has filed a complaint against Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO), saying that the home furnishings maker has "double-counted" merchandise, increasing the royalties it is owed for sales of its merchandise in Kmart stores.

But Martha Stewart Living, whose namesake founder is currently on trial on obstruction of justice charges related to questionable stock trades, said Friday that Kmart was trying to reduce its royalty payments and that it would contest Kmart's filing.

Martha Stewart Living and Kmart signed a seven-year agreement in June 2001 to sell Martha Stewart Everyday brand home decorating, garden products and housewares in Kmart stores.

In the complaint, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago on Wednesday, Kmart acknowledged that it fell short of several minimum royalties for the year, but said Martha Stewart Living was "double-counting" royalty payments and demanding too much money.

Kmart said in the court filing that its agreement with Martha Stewart Living call for royalties based on both total sales and on sales by product line. Martha Stewart Living has demanded Kmart pay a minimum for each category as well as a minimum for total sales, but Kmart argues that the minimum on total sales includes the per-product minimums.

Martha Stewart is "victimizing Kmart by forcing it to pay excessive royalties and advertising dollars based on an untenable interpretation of the agreement," Kmart said in the court filing.

Kmart has said repeatedly that the Martha Stewart brand was selling well, despite the legal woes of lifestyle trendsetter Martha Stewart.

Martha Stewart Living said the Kmart complaint sought to reduce payments by about $4.5 million to $47.5 million for the year ended Jan. 31, 2004. Kmart was also seeking to reduce advertising spending, Martha Stewart Living said.

"MSO believes that Kmart's interpretation is inconsistent with the terms of our long-standing contract, and therefore intends to defend this action and enforce the terms of the contract," Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia said in a statement Friday.

Kmart filed for bankruptcy in Chicago in January team led by investor Edward Lampert.

Thoughts:

This is an example of a civil case that exceeded the value of 20 dollars. Martha Stewart cost Kmart millions because of her company "double counting" merchandise. Because of this, Kmart was able to take them to court, in order to try and regain what her company cost them.

____________________________________________________________