Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Ride the Ducks of Philadelphia, LLC v. Duck Boat Tours, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
138 Fed. Appx. 431 (2005)


Facts

Ride the Ducks of Philadelphia, LLC (Ride the Ducks) (plaintiff) conducted tours in Philadelphia on amphibious vehicles known as duck boats, which traveled through Philadelphia and then entered the Delaware River via a ramp. Ride the Ducks was authorized to conduct these tours by a 10-year license agreement with Penn’s Landing Corporation (Penn’s Landing), a non-profit organization with municipality-conferred authority to contract for construction near the Delaware River. Pursuant to the contract, Ride the Ducks was the exclusive user of the ramp. Ride the Ducks had spent $585,000 to build the ramp and was paying a $50,000 yearly licensing fee and a portion of its gross revenues. Duck Boat Tours, Inc., trading as Super Ducks (Super Ducks) (defendant), which also owned duck boats, sought to negotiate with Ride the Ducks for shared use of the ramp. When Ride the Ducks declined, Super Ducks wrote a letter to Penn’s Landing stating that Super Ducks would use the ramp with or without permission. Ride the Ducks filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a petition for a temporary restraining order, arguing that Super Ducks was threatening trespass, conversion, and tortious interference with the license agreement. The federal district court granted the temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction. Following the hearing, the district court granted the preliminary injunction, agreeing that Super Ducks’ threatened use would be tortious interference. Super Ducks appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Nygaard, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.