Landmark Legal Cases: Marbury, Bad Frog, Palsgraf & More

Marbury v. Madison

President Adams appointed many Federalists to the federal courts, but Madison did not deliver all the commissions. Marbury, one of the appointees, asked the Supreme Court to enforce delivery of the commissions (Judiciary Act of 1789). The court refused Marbury’s request, finding that the relevant part of the Judiciary Act conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall ruled the decision established the evaluation of federal law constitutionality, which is known as judicial review.

Bad Frog Brewing

Bad Frog Brewing (BFB) sells alcoholic beverages with labels of a frog making the gesture known as “giving the finger.” The company applied to the NYSLA for brand label approval. NYSLA denied the application because the label could appear in stores with obvious exposure to children. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of NYSLA. BFB appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This court made a decision in favor of BFB, because NYSLA’s denial of BFB’s application violated the First Amendment. The court concluded that a commercial speech limitation must be part of a substantial effort to advance a valid state interest, not merely the removal of a few grains of offensive sand from a beach of vulgarity.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

The plaintiff was waiting for a train on a station platform. A man was rushing to catch a train that had begun to move away. A man nearly fell, and a railroad guard pushed him to help him board the train. In the process, the man’s package fell on the railroad tracks and exploded because it contained fireworks. Palsgraf was injured as a result. She sued the railroad company for damages in a NY state court. The court concluded that the railroad guards were not negligent with respect to Palsgraf because her injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

Lucy v. Zehmer

Lucy and Zehmer were drinking at a restaurant and talking about selling Zehmer’s farm. Zehmer wrote up an agreement on the back of a restaurant check for the sale of the farm to Lucy, and he and his wife signed it. When Lucy brought an action in a Virginia state court to enforce the agreement, Zehmer argued he was drunk and that the whole thing was a joke. In the end, Zehmer needed to sell the farm because an agreement on the check is essential to a valid contract. His words and acts manifested an intention to agree.

Hamer v. Sidway

An uncle promised his nephew that if he refrained from drinking alcohol, smoking, and gambling until he reached the age of 21, he would pay him $5,000. The nephew agreed. After the nephew performed his part, the uncle said that the money was in the bank and the nephew could consider this money on interest. Later on, the uncle died, and Sidway (executor) didn’t want to give the money because there was no written contract, therefore it was invalid. The NY court ruled in favor of Hamer. Consideration does not require that the promise actually benefit the promisee.

Coca-Cola Co. v. The Koke Co. of America

The Coca-Cola Co. brought an action in a federal district court to prevent other beverage companies from using the names Koke and Dope. The defendants said that the Coca-Cola trademark was a fraudulent representation, so they were not entitled to any help from the courts. The CCC appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The court enjoined the competing beverage companies from calling the product Koke but not from Dope. The Coca-Cola name was not misleading. The name Coke was found to be so common for the trademarked product Coca-Cola.