Nike vs Kasky, Outline Example

Research Claim

Nike V. Kasky is a case where procedure trumps substance, and this is seen in the fact that even though Kasky was able to take Nike to court without providing any real evidence, Nike didn’t have to answer for its actions in the media primarily due to the act that the legal structure and process enabled it to undermine reasonable logic, ethics, and integrity.

Three major statements

1. The plaintiff is empowered by the Business and Professions Code 17204 which enables him to sue Nike on the behalf of the general public.
2. Nike argued that to convict Nike of this charge would be in violation of free speech of a corporation.
3. The Writ of Certiorari played a primary role in the Supreme Court’s decision. It entails a list of all parties involved in a particular case, as well as a statement of the facts of the case.

Topic Sentences

1. The plaintiff argued that Kasky was within his right to sue a corporation or another person, due to the fact that through invoking the California’s unfair competition law and the false advertising law that it included, anyone has standing according.
2. Nike argued that to convict Nike of this charge would be in violation of free speech of a corporation.

Two detailed pieces of information that support the Statements

1. Collins and Skover further affirm this idea of precedence, noting that, “actually, there are several lessons–about law and how it is practiced, about how procedure can trump substance, about the character and future of the First Amendment, and about how all of this plays out in the lives of foreign workers. American consumers, and those for whom the majesty of the law is never quite majestic enough” (Collins and Skover, 965).
2. The most important aspect of their empowerment to file suit stems from the California decisional law which enables the plaintiff file suit without having to actually prove falsity.

Concluding sentence and lead-in for next paragraph

The case goes on to point out that these terms apply to any form of advertising, or public statements made by the company on the internet, or any statement made about a product where the speaker may eventually intend to sell the product, which puts the California Supreme Court in a position where it must be the final deciders as to where or not the material in question is misleading or not.

Conclusion

In sum, ultimately, the issue of the case was not resolved and one can only wonder, however, what would have been the outcome, if Kansky was able to provide adequate enough proof, or if the all of the evidence provided by Kasky had been admissible in court.