(a) In jurisdictions following the Ultramares doctrine, under what conditions can auditors be held liable under common law to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries? (b) How do jurisdictions that follow the legal precedent inherent in the Rusch Factors case differ from jurisdictions following Ultramares? (a) Under Ultramares dorctrine, ordinary negligence is insufficient for liability to third parties because the lack of privity of contract between the third party and the auditor unless the third party is a primary beneficiary, However, if the auditor had been grossly negligence and committed constructively fraud or fraud during his or her audit, he or she could be held liable to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries. In Phar-Mor case, Coopers & Lybrand’s Attorneys argued that Coopers & Lybrand’s had only been ordinary negligence and tried to convince the jury that Coopers & Lybrand’s could not discover the fraud because Phar-Mor’s management was involved in that massive fraud and worked together to hide evidence. In addition, the investors and creditors of Phar-Mor did not have a written agreement with the auditor, Coopers & Lybrand’s, defining Coopers & Lybrand’s duty.
Joan’s mere suspicion of Garcia is not enough to constitute probable cause. In the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
If Joe Justice wants to get the deal done with Jim Lawbreaker, what options does he have in terms of bringing charges against him? I am not sure about the options the Joe Justice has regarding making a deal with Jim Lawbreaker, I think that the one of the charges would be accessory to commit a crime, and since he wasn’t the main character in the robbery and I think that in order to get to the main culprit the deal that Jim Lawbreaker attorney is offering is fair since the results of the lab tests are incomplete and a statement from Jim will help the prosecutor make sure that Martin goes to jail for the crime. The evidence does not place Lawbreaker on the scene and no witnesses can place him there either. 2. Does Joe Justice have enough evidence to take a case against Slick Martin to grand
Jurisdiction is determined by assessing whether the court receiving the complaint has power over a defendant and whether the property involved in a dispute is within the given jurisdiction. Filing a complaint in the wrong jurisdiction leaves the courts no choice, but to decline to rule or even hear the case until filed in the correct jurisdiction. A petitioner for the
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
Week #3 Discussion Question Discuss the difference between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and the role each plays in the juvenile court intake process. Inculpatory evidence evidence shows a person's involvement in an act. Evidence which tends to show a person's innocence is considered exculpatory evidence. In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty). [2] Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested.
The Courtroom and the Courthouse In a United States courtroom, there are many participants who contribute to the goal of justice for all. The judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, victim, witnesses, jurors, bailiff, and court reporter are each participants in the courtroom workgroup. Although every participant plays a different role in the process, they each contribute to the courts general objective of ensuring that the legal system remains fair, efficient, and effective to those individuals accused of committing a crime. A judge’s role is essential to court proceedings. He or she is responsible for ensuring the court proceedings are legal, and that the defendant receives his or her rights to due process of law.
Crime itself is inevitable. It cannot be stopped, but it can be controlled. What is the co-conspirator rule? The co-conspirator rule is a hearsay rule that allows the acts and statements of one conspirator, as long as they were done or said during or after the conspiracy, to be admitted into evidence at the trial of another conspirator, even if done or said in the defendant's absence. In federal court and in some states, the act or statement is admissible even if done or said
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person without consent or legal justification. False imprisonment can be committed by words, acts, or by both. The common law tort of false imprisonment is defined as an unlawful restraint of an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of movement. In order to constitute the wrong it is not necessary that the individual be actually confined or assaulted. It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person.