This nurse should have requested assistance from a nursing supervisor when the physician failed to acknowledge the patient’s right to self determination by stating “No” when the physician wished to intubate him as well as acknowledging that this patient had an advanced directive. This nurse also failed, when she initially spoke with the DPOA, to notify him that the patient had an advanced directive and she should have taken steps to notify him of this as soon as she realized that she had made a
“But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected” ~ Justice Potter Stewert (Katz vs. United States). Now don’t get me wrong, because at no point am I saying that what DLK was doing was “right”. However, DLK obviously “expected to keep what he was doing as private”. Therefore, the law enforcement should have gotten a search warrant from a judge prior to searching DLK’s home. I believe many of you would argue that the law enforcement didn’t need to get a search warrant in order to search DLK’s house, because DLK could easily destroy the evidence.
While the court did not rule on the issue of whether the company violated Wilson's ADA rights by failing to provide accommodations, this case shows what employers should not do when trying to determine if an employee is disabled. In January, the 4th Circuit upheld the decision, adding to a previous standard set by the Supreme Court regarding
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff and acceptance claims under Title VII. The court ruled in the favor of employer. 4. The reasoning behind the court’s decision The decision of the court was based on the US employment law of Title VII which allows employers to avoid sexual harassment liability if the employee fails to take benefit of employer’s preventive measures. Hardage was familiar with the anti-discrimination policy of CBS, still he did not involve the company in the matter.
However, the courts found that there was no duty owed by the defendant as Lord Denning stated that impose duty on defendant in such circumstance will lead to “no end of claims” . The courts sometimes can reluctant to impose duty on professionals such as police force. It is argue that the effectiveness of the police will be undermined when they are working with restrictive rules. One example is Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Miss Hill’s mother claimed that the Constable of West Yorkshire failed to apprehend the murder at an earlier stage which subsequently led to her daughter’s death. Lord Keith dismissed this action and stated that “In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the
At the same time under the police-created exigency doctrine, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search if the circumstances were created by the police [ii]. Holdings: Issue 1: The police entered the apartment building under exigent circumstances believing that evidence was being destroyed. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision based on the fact that the exigent circumstances were created by the police themselves. Reasoning: Issue 1: The police were not in pursuit of the suspect when they initially entered the apartment building. There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed.
Portfolio Project #3 No suppression for ‘no knock’ search Hudson was upset because he felt the entry of his home was unlawful and a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. Hudson argued that, police will now feel that they can skip past the knock-and-announce rule with no exclusionary rule sanction. Hudson brought forth that there were a few published decisions to date that announced big damage awards for numerous knock-and-announce violations. Hudson felt there wasn’t a difference in his case. Antonin Scalia noted that the “knock-and-announce” rule is constitutionally mandated.
• Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity? In deciding Donald and Denise Hastings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Tax Court ruled that “…occasional and weekend activity… does not indicate a profit objective.” and, therefore is not provided with trade or business status. Conclusion Based upon the existing precedents, Dr Green’s gambling activities would not be considered a trade or business. This opinion is supported by the fact Dr. Green is actively employed as a physician and does not “…depend on income from the [gambling] activity” as required by FS-2007-18. And as ruled in Donald and Denise Hastings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, since the gambling activities are limited to the weekends, they are excluded from consideration as a business activity.
3d 498 (1990), to give an idea of false imprisonment. In this case, the court helped identify some of the points, which helps to identify the act of false detention. The court could not find anything in this case that proved that the victim was forced for detention. In this case, the victim was less than 14 years of age at the time of leaving home and the victim had no evidence that could prove that he was falsely detained. If the action of false detention is identified with any necessary action, it is often considered as a brainwashing of the victim (George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness).
I don't think that it's believable that the pharmacist would give Miss Emily the poison, because, as he stated, she had to state her reasons for wanting the arsenic by law, and she clearly refused to. So by law, the pharmacist could not sell her the poison, and he could get penalized for doing