US Litigation: Cases of Product Liability, Civil Rights, and Federalism

LAW TASK

Introduction
The following task comprises of three different cases that took place in the US and will
emphasize on the various facts that are concerned with these specific cases. Along with that will
also elucidate how the decisions for each of these particular cases applies in US litigation
And the manner in which they vary in terms of summary judgement, dismissal, remand, and
reversal. And the final section of the task will consider the roles of the various levels of both
state and federal courts.
Discussion
1. Case of Mrs.Phillips and Anchor Hocking Glass
In this case, Mrs. Phillips purchased a glass baking dish that was manufactured by Anchor
Hocking Glass from Thrifty Drug Store in Mesa, Arizona. This Anchor Hocking Glass is a
corporation based on Ohio that manufactures glassware in the state of Ohio and distributes the
products across the nation in the USA. The appellant of this case, Mrs. Phillips complained that
the while removing the baking dish from the oven, the dish exploded and with that Mrs. Phillips
injured herself and wanted her attorney to bring about a product liability lawsuit against Anchor
Hocking Glass in Arizona.
Now the fact that arises in that case is that as Mrs. Phillips is injured due to the fault of the
product that was manufactured by the Anchor Hocking Glass, so she has the full right to sue the
Anchor Hocking Glass in Ohio ("Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation", 2018). It can
be based on the fact that there are certain organizations which have a chain of distributions. But
in any case they are not prevented from getting sued as they are doing the business in some
other location. When the company is operating and functioning in Ohio, and is having its chain
of distribution in Arizona, it is a subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in which it performs the
business.
Now the next point of concern is that if the jurisdiction of Arizona can take this exercise in the
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In context with this, rule 4(e) allows the Arizona courts
to acquire a personal jurisdiction upon a dependant who is a non-resident the action of
functioning of which has caused to arouse a situation of complaint in the case. Thus within the

limits of the personal jurisdiction, it is constitutionally allowed that the Arizona courts could take
over the jurisdiction (Gallagher & Ulmer, 2016). As stated by the Supreme Court of the United
States Of America, a state court might acquire a specific personal jurisdiction upon a nonresident
defendant if that happens to have some "minimum contacts" with that state, so the defendant
must satisfy the "minimum contacts" test.
Now when the question arises is that if the case could be tried in the federal district court, then
the answer to that will obviously be on the positive side that the case may be tried in a federal
district court. In most of the cases it is found that some of the nonresident defendants always
prefer to try the cases in the federal courts. The probable reasons for that may be the non resident
defendants may think that the judges of the state courts are elected by the jury, which in turn may
be familiar or sympathetic with the appellant and there may be discrimination regarding the
justice. Along with that the other fact that comes here regarding the matter is that the federal
district court provides for an enhanced neutral forum, where there is a huge count of potential
jurors and a life-tenured judge (VerSteeg, 2015).
2. The Lake Nixon Club Issue
A. The Lake Nixon Club is a amusement place near Little Rock, Arkansas that includes areas for
swimming, boating, sunbathing, picnicking, miniature golf, and snack bars. But the Negro
residents claimed that the club brought about class action by denying their admission to the Lake
Nixon Club. The Negro group alleged that the club is a public accommodation as per the
provisions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thus the club violated the subject of the
act by the very act of refusing the admission of the petitioners into the club based on the racial
grounds. This Title II radically prohibits for the racial discrimination at the places concerning
public accommodation the operation of which affects the commerce. However the case was
dismissed on the ground that the club was not a public accommodation (Smith, 2017).
Now, when it is found that the Lake Nixon club is not the specific type of the establishments that
is somehow covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so for the means of invalidating such
restrictions regarding the admission of the Negros an interstate commerce connection might be
found. Doing so, it can be demonstrated that the club affects interstate commerce and thus there
in no manner the racial discrimination could be continued.