The judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case awarded the plaintiff damages for surveillance and investigation; this is similar to what is being sought in the Northland Corp v. Brat Simpson, Arty Dodger case, the action against the defendants is for the amount of $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”. The cost of shoplifting is very high, it cuts into the profit margin of the retailer and is paid for by the consumer. It requires stores to invest in more complex means of security. This could be the reason why the judge in this case felt
Coyote v. Acme is an essay that takes the form of a realistic legal case being brought by the famous Roadrunner cartoon character, Wile E. Coyote, as he files a lawsuit against the infamous manufacturer of those negligent products sold by the defendant; ACME Corp. Anyone who has watched the Roadrunner show is familiar with the long history of poor Wile E. Coyote and his purchase of product after product from ACME that never delivers on his dream to help catch the Roadrunner. From a satirical point of view, reading of Coyote v. Acme, at first, will doubtlessly have you taking it purely as an accusation of a crime committed by the imperfect nature of modern American society. Many of the lawsuits filed in America are attempts by consumers to hold big business accountable because lawmakers and politicians won't do the job, but more than a few have been by people hoping to make money off their own ignorance. Coyote vs. ACME is written in the idiom of a legal document that has been delivered to the court in Tempe, Arizona, complete with a case number and everything.
Sullivan will most likely be able to establish that his employer, Lonestar Bank, is liable for false imprisonment. In the state of Texas, to establish a claim for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove that (i.) the defendant willfully detained the plaintiff; (ii.) that the defendant detained the plaintiff without lawful authority; and (iii.) that the defendant detained the plaintiff without his consent.
This reflects a utilitarian stand-point because the wood dust is a serious problem that could lead to serious injury or worse for every member of the company. By reporting this to OSHA it may lead to fines and consequences for my employer and others at the managerial level but not reporting this could lead to the end of every employee. The reason I chose to notify OSHA is because they are a neutral 3rd party whose only role is to ensure the safety and security in an occupational setting along with responding to allegations against the aforementioned employer. OSHA themselves is basically the top-notch you can get to in regard to employee safety, they have governmental backing and an obligation to come check out an allegation and can put up further road blocks for companies if they don’t comply. I am concerned that even the owner doesn’t care enough to ensure the safety and well-being of his employees as he said, “You cannot prove that there is an explosion hazard here.
Unfortunately, Mr. Pickering was removed from his teaching position but he did not stop fighting for his case. (Secunda 2010) The appellant, Marvin Pickering, then requested the review of the Board's action in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, which declared his dismissal on the grounds that his letter was detrimental to the interests of the school system. Fortunately while on appeal the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment. He was then able to requested review in the US Supreme Court and the high court granted certiorari. The US Supreme Court ruled eight votes for Pickering and one vote against.
Coach Knight used discipline to reinforce his motivational tools by being fair to all and never playing favorites. He disciplined players for performing poorly by threatening to take away scholarships, benching starters or throwing players out of practice if the behavior persisted. He reinforced his leadership
The main difference between a mental game coach and a psychotherapist is that a mental game coach works with athletes on sports performance enhancement and not personal challenges or abnormal behavior” (Cohn). Dr. Patrick Cohn presents another myth in his publication, When is Sports Psychology Useful?. He writes about the view stating that the physical and mental aspects of sports are separate from each other; although, both of these aspects go hand-in-hand. Perfection of technique, contrary to popular belief does not and should not ever have to be separated from attitudeThe main difference between a mental game coach and a psychotherapist is that a mental game coach works with athletes on sports performance enhancement and not personal challenges
[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] Medgar Evers Byron De La Beckwith (1963 & 1994) Bobby DeLaughter The assassin was white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a man with an intimidating and violent personality. Beckwith was arrested, tried, and acquitted by an all white jury. Years later, in 1994, Assistant District Attorney, Bobby DeLaughter, reopened the case. This led to a retrial in which the jury convicted Beckwith, 31 years after the act, of assassinating Medgar Evers. The story of Beckwith's second trial is the subject of the 1996 film entitled Ghosts of Mississippi.
The presiding judge during trial found out that Apprendi fired shots to a neighboring house as threats to leave the neighborhood. As the judge’s final decision and consideration of Apprendi’s actions to be a hate crime gave the judge notion of a severe sentence in prison. The high court’s decision to overturn the sentence was in favor of Apprendi’s Sixth Amendment right of due process to trial by jury and evidence has to be admitted in court through process to the jurors. A judge imposing sentencing must not consider facts unable to provide to the jury is against the federal
1178; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 248; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 230; Times, July 23, 1998 Case Digest Subject: Criminal procedure Other related subjects: Criminal law Keywords: Intention; Jury directions; Murder Summary: jury directions; murder; intention; appropriate direction to be given on accused's intention Abstract: W appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction of the murder of his three month old son, whom he had thrown onto a hard surface after losing his temper, arguing that he had not intended to cause the baby serious harm. The trial judge had, towards the close of his summing up, which was otherwise in accordance with R. v Nedrick (Ransford Delroy) [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1025 , directed the jury that they could infer such an intention if they were satisfied that, in throwing his son, W appreciated that there was a substantial risk of causing serious injury.