Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Peed v. Peed
North Carolina Court of Appeals
325 S.E.2d 275 (1985)
People work together on simple projects or ongoing enterprises all the time. Often, they do so without laying out the terms of what they're doing. But when does such working together rise to the level of partnership?
The court considered that question in Peed versus Peed.
When Darlene and William Peed got married, William owned a dairy farm that was heavily in debt. Darlene brought her savings of about three thousand dollars into the marriage and invested that in the farm.
Darlene and William discussed the farm's finances.
Darlene claimed that she told William she wasn't going to invest more of her time or money in the farm while she had no ownership in it or any share of the profits.
She further claimed that the two of them agreed that they'd become partners in the dairy, and the title to the farm and the dairy cow's registration would be changed to include both their names.
After that, Darlene and William both worked on the farm, and farm expenses were paid from a joint account kept for the farm.
Even after they separated, they continued to discuss farming operations, including the need to sell some dairy cows and the price to demand.
William admitted that he added Darlene to the cow's registration and the title to the farm, but he claimed that that was to protect Darlene from his family seizing them if something happened to William.
After their marriage ended, William sold the dairy cows for thirty eight thousand dollars. Darlene then sued William for nineteen thousand dollars, asserting that the farm was a partnership and she was entitled to half the proceeds.
After a jury trial, the trial court granted William a directed verdict, ruling that Darlene hadn't offered sufficient evidence of the partnership's existence to support a jury verdict in her favor. Darlene appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/peed-v-peed
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/peed-v-peed
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Peed v. Peed
North Carolina Court of Appeals
325 S.E.2d 275 (1985)
People work together on simple projects or ongoing enterprises all the time. Often, they do so without laying out the terms of what they're doing. But when does such working together rise to the level of partnership?
The court considered that question in Peed versus Peed.
When Darlene and William Peed got married, William owned a dairy farm that was heavily in debt. Darlene brought her savings of about three thousand dollars into the marriage and invested that in the farm.
Darlene and William discussed the farm's finances.
Darlene claimed that she told William she wasn't going to invest more of her time or money in the farm while she had no ownership in it or any share of the profits.
She further claimed that the two of them agreed that they'd become partners in the dairy, and the title to the farm and the dairy cow's registration would be changed to include both their names.
After that, Darlene and William both worked on the farm, and farm expenses were paid from a joint account kept for the farm.
Even after they separated, they continued to discuss farming operations, including the need to sell some dairy cows and the price to demand.
William admitted that he added Darlene to the cow's registration and the title to the farm, but he claimed that that was to protect Darlene from his family seizing them if something happened to William.
After their marriage ended, William sold the dairy cows for thirty eight thousand dollars. Darlene then sued William for nineteen thousand dollars, asserting that the farm was a partnership and she was entitled to half the proceeds.
After a jury trial, the trial court granted William a directed verdict, ruling that Darlene hadn't offered sufficient evidence of the partnership's existence to support a jury verdict in her favor. Darlene appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/peed-v-peed
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/peed-v-peed
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
