That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict. After a jury returns a verdict, the losing party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for judgment now withstanding the verdict. The judge is asked to hold that there were not legally sufficient grounds to support the jury’s verdict and to either overturn the entire verdict or a portion of it. Courts preferred post– verdict motions to pre—verdict motions because, if an appeals court reverses a post verdict motion, there is no need to redo the entire trial. Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs.
Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible. DISPOSITION: - Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. J.Black filed a dissenting opinion. J. Marshall didn't participate in the vote. J.Stewart wrote "one who shuts the door behind him, pays tikes, he is surely entitled to assume that the words he says into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world."
After much deliberation ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously voted 9-0 that euthanasia in fact did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Although patients are able to refuse lifesaving treatment, the Court held that there is a clear difference between treatment refusal and criminal intent and that the states have the authority to determine the constitutionality of physician assisted suicide, not the federal government. Physician assisted suicide is when a doctor or a trained medical professional assists, in the form of “information, guidance”, or action, someone to kill themselves (National Right to Life Association). Many terminally ill patients rely on doctors when suffering has reached their limit, cognizant of their powerful drugs and medication that will make dying easier. The main constitutional issue within Vacco v. Quill involves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which states that no state can deny any persons “equal protection of the laws”.
Merck and Co., Inc. is a leading pharmaceutical company that is facing a dilemma about distribution and marketing of its novel anti-HIV drug. After research efforts of four hundred people and over $700 million (1996 Dollars), for a period of ten years, Merck was able to market a novel anti-HIV drug Crixivan that was classified under the class of protease inhibitors. 1 Undue prevalence of AIDS in the US had triggered a huge demand for the drug even before the drug was in the FDA approval stage. An “unparalleled and complex synthesis procedure” 1 resulted in a delayed large-scale production plan of Crixivan. Approximately fifty patients required a dose of almost one hundred pounds of this drug, this demand could only be fulfilled over a period of one year with the current manufacturing infrastructure available at Merck.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
Fiege made payments under the agreement but stopped when blood tests revealed that he could not be the father. Boehm initiated criminal bastardy proceedings and Fiege was acquitted because the blood tests revealed that he could not have been the father. Boehm then sued to enforce the agreement for support in civil court. Fiege appealed the jury’s verdict in favor of Boehm. FACTS: Hilda Louise Boehm became pregnant and believed in good faith that Louis Gail Fiege was the Father.
Under no circumstances would it be practical to consider the content of defendants announcement as anything but wholesome personal opinion, the court did decide claims based on emotional distress were a different matter. 5. In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required? The Supreme Court permitted, plaintiffs lawsuit to proceed even though the radio station is protected under comedic expression, we note comedic
The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released. The judge instructed the jury that they could presume that the contents could have been unfavorable to Redmond. The jury awarded monetary damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision. It found that Federal Rule of Evidence 501 prompted the recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege.
2. The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ruled the “Act” violates the Constitution by denying health benefits to same-sex spouses. 3. Since 2010, courts reviewing the “Act” have found it unconstitutional even on a basic level of interpretation of the law. 4.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.