Calder vs. Jones – A Case of Jurisdiction University of Phoenix BUS/415 [ November 7, 2011 ] Abstract The National Enquirer, a Florida corporation, who nationally distributes weekly newspapers containing celebrity gossip and news, was sued by Ms. Shirley Jones a resident of the state of California for defamation, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress after printing libelous a story about her. The National Enquirer and its president, who was also named in the lawsuit, tried to argue that because he and the corporation resided primarily in Florida a lawsuit could not be brought forth within the state of California. The state trial court agreed that California held no personal jurisdiction however, the appellate court reversed the state trial court’s ruling and the Supreme Court, with a unanimous decision, agreed that the state of California did indeed have personal jurisdiction over the National Enquirer and president, because the intent to harm was brought upon a California resident, and the result of the harm would be felt in the state of California. Therefore, the lawsuit would be brought forth to be heard by the state of California. Who is the National Enquirer?
Does Mrs. Johnson have the right to recover for her damages against the City of Santa Monica? A relevant case in the Supreme Court of California, Case Number S132619, Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006), dealing with compensation under the Business and Professions Code Section 5412, the court concluded that owners and occupiers of roadside property do not possess a “right to be seen” that requires the payment of compensation for municipal landscaping efforts having no injurious effect on any property rights other than the claimed right to visibility. They did not implicate the compensation requirement set forth in Business and Professions Code section 5412. CONCLUSION In Regards to Mrs. Leona Johnson’s case, her chances of recovering monetary damages against the City of Santa Monica might be difficult, unless she can provide proof that “the loss of visibility, if any, decreases the fair market value of its property”.
The medical staff nurse pleaded guilty to one count of wrongful disclosure of individual health information for personal gain. The case is currently awaiting a trial, but the nurse will be penalized for violating HIPAA. The argument found in this article was the nurse put the whole clinic in jeopardy. The physician stated there are consequences and made staff aware of the consequences of violating patient privacy. The solution was terminating the employee and providing briefing staff members on HIPAA laws and regulations.
• This organization has intervened in over 140 cases since it was formed in 1985, and judgments have considered such issues such as violence against women, sexual harassment, and spousal support. • They have worked in cases where there has been a denial of equality rights such as the case of Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police. • Jane Doe launched a civil suit against the Toronto police after she was the victim of a serial rapist who had been targeting an area in downtown Toronto where she has lived in the summer of 1986. • She successfully sued for damages on the grounds that the police, in failing to warn women in the area of the “balcony rapist” were, in effect, using them as bait to catch the rapist. • This infringed on the grounds of her equality rights under s.15 (1) of the charter, which states that everyone is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection… • Doe also claimed that the police had breached her legal right under s.7 “to life, liberty and security of the
Lately afterwards, Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment of President Clinton were follow-ups to the Jones case. A third case that also took place in 1991 was the “Tailhook” scandal involving sexual allegations against the armed forces (“Five”). A former Navy lieutenant Paula Coughlin was among the women who alleged she was assaulted during a conference held at the Vegas’ Hilton Hotel. Her organization didn’t continue her investigation, yet retaliated against her. In the end, she was awarded $1.7 million for compensatory damages and $5 million for punitive damages.
The Profmo Affair was a political scandal that occurred in 1963 when Conservative MP, John Profumo, was accused of having an affair with Russian model, Christene Keeler. The Daily Express broke the story in an indirect way, due to the libel law preventing them from doing so directly. The newspaper published a photo of Keeler, who was missing at the time, on the front page, next to an article reporting that John Profumo had resigned as Secretary Of State For War. This was an attempt to get the people reading the newspaper to put the pieces together and come up with a conclusion. In March 1963, when rumours were being spread about Profumo’s relationship with Keeler, he was summoned to questioning by parliament.
Facts: In July 2011, Marlorita Battle filed a lawsuit in the Nashville division of Tennessee’s U.S. District Court against A&E Television Networks, LLC and Wild Eyes Productions for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Battle appeared on the show “The Squad: Prison Police” while visiting her husband in Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Battle was portrayed by the show as someone smuggling drugs into the prison. The police conducted a search on the show and turned up no evidence of drug smuggling in spite of their accusations. Battle then sued A&E along with the producers of the show for $375,000 for punitive and compensatory damages.
Unit 5 Assignment Breach of contract LS311-03 Business Law Lisa Schwartz September 25, 2012 Unit 5 Assignment Case Study Read the following news story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/charlize-theron-settles-2_n_140920.html , involving a breach of contract. For this assignment, answer the following questions based on the above news story: Breach of Contract: is the non-performance of a contractual duty (Miller &Jentz, 2008). Charlize Theron allegedly breached her contract by wearing a Christian Dior watch during a press event. The contract stated that during the time frame of October 2005 through December 2006 Charlize would only wear Raymond Weil watches. Raymond weil contract was that Charlize was to use the photographs
MEMORANDUM TO: Managing Partner FROM: Ali Salameh RE: Memo 2; Garden State Tutoring Title VII Issue QUESTION PRESENTED Can Courtney Harrison establish a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her supervisor Bill Drayton’s conduct of subjecting her to view and discuss photos of nude women while in his office, and emailing her such photos with suggestive comments? BRIEF ANSWER Probably yes. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is a prohibited form of sexual discrimination under Title VII. Courtney Harrison (Courtney) will likely have a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment when applying the Third Circuit test: (1) intentional discrimination because of sex; (2) discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) a reasonable person would find the work environment as hostile; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability. Bill Drayton (Bill) intentionally discriminated against Courtney’s sex when she was subjected to photos, questions, and comments regarding nude women.
Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage. It undid a decision by the state Supreme Court from earlier that year that found an earlier ban to be illegal. Since its passage, Proposition 8 has been the subject of court actions and has continued to be one of the central battlefields in the fight over same-sex marriage in the United States. In August 2011, a federal district judge found that Proposition 8 — passed by California voters by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent — violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought the suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.