This HTML5 document contains 65 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n19https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/
n10https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n13https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/
n21https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexv/
n11https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/756/543/2291868/
n4http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
n20https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/313/487/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n17https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Scheck_v._Burger_King_Corp.
rdfs:label
Scheck v. Burger King Corp.
rdfs:comment
Scheck v. Burger King Corp. (756 F. Supp. 543 (S.D. Fla. 1991) was a case of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in which it considered motions for summary judgement brought by defendant Burger King Corporation concerning four counts raised by Plaintiff Scheck who alleged that defendant "breached an implied non-competition agreement (Count I), an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II) an implied contract created by promissory estoppel (Count III) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act" which plaintiff alleged incorporates the proceeding three claims. Burger King moved for summary judgement on the basis that Scheck's claims were insufficient "as a matter of law", were barred by the Massachusetts Statute of Frauds, or were release
dbp:name
Scheck v. Burger King Corp.
foaf:depiction
n4:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida_cases
dbo:wikiPageID
64498316
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
984791750
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Discovery_(law) dbr:Summary_judgement dbr:Franchising dbr:Fernandez_v._Vazquez dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida dbr:Damages dbr:Non-compete dbr:Statute_of_frauds dbr:Marriott_Corporation dbr:Prima_facie dbr:Howard_Johnson's dbr:Writ_of_certiorari dbr:Frank_Harlan_Freedman dbr:Diversity_jurisdiction dbr:Legal_merit dbr:Johnson_v._Davis dbr:Promissory_estoppel dbr:William_Hoeveler dbr:Good_faith dbr:Good_faith_(law) dbr:Affirmative_defense dbr:Massachusetts_Consumer_Protection_Act dbc:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida_cases dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Massachusetts dbr:376_U.S._612 dbr:Change_of_venue dbr:Motion_to_dismiss dbr:Choice_of_law dbr:Enjoin dbr:Conflict_of_laws
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n11: n13:1332 n13:1391 n13:1404 n17:encroachment n19:sic n20: n21:chapter93a
owl:sameAs
n10:DB7q6 wikidata:Q97275632
dbp:transcripts
n11:
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Infobox_court_case dbt:Notelist dbt:Start_date dbt:Efn dbt:Reflist
dbo:thumbnail
n4:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida.jpg?width=300
dbp:citations
756
dbp:court
dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida
dbp:fullName
Steven A. SCHECK, Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Defendant.
dbp:judges
dbr:William_Hoeveler
dbo:abstract
Scheck v. Burger King Corp. (756 F. Supp. 543 (S.D. Fla. 1991) was a case of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in which it considered motions for summary judgement brought by defendant Burger King Corporation concerning four counts raised by Plaintiff Scheck who alleged that defendant "breached an implied non-competition agreement (Count I), an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II) an implied contract created by promissory estoppel (Count III) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act" which plaintiff alleged incorporates the proceeding three claims. Burger King moved for summary judgement on the basis that Scheck's claims were insufficient "as a matter of law", were barred by the Massachusetts Statute of Frauds, or were released by the plaintiff as a direct result of two releases executed by Scheck in 1985 and 1986, respectively. The case invoked legal questions concerning the covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to legal protection of the territory rights of franchisees.
dbp:dateDecided
1991-01-15
dbp:decisionBy
William Hoeveler
dbp:opinions
Florida Law governs this case; Defendant's Affirmative Defenses of Release and Statute of Frauds are denied and dismissed; Defendant's motion for summary judgement as to the claim in count 1 of an implied non-competition agreement is granted and count 1 is dismissed; Defendant's motion for summary judgement as to the claim in count 2 of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is denied; Defendant's motion for summary judgement as to the claim in count 3 of an implied contract and assertion of promissory estoppel is granted and count 3 is dismissed; Defendant's motion for summary judgement as to the claim in count 4 of violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act is granted and count 4 is dismissed.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Scheck_v._Burger_King_Corp.?oldid=984791750&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
25385
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Scheck_v._Burger_King_Corp.