Rita is now suing for her injuries.| d.|The district attorney is bringing Ali to court for violating the city's keg ordinance.| B. ESSAY (eight points each) 1. Explain the origins of equity and its place in contemporary American law. In the old times, in England, the judge sometimes refuses to hear the case, judging that there was no legal basis for the state. The offended party might then take the case to the Chancellor, whose position in the king’s council gave him unique, stiff powers.
Goldring was dismissed from the case, and the trial proceeded against just Medlantic. The jury found Medlantic liable for breach of confidential relationship and awarded damages in the amount of $250,000 (Doe, 2003). The jury found against Doe on the invasion of privacy claim because Goldring’s disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with Washington Health Center (Doe, 2003). The jury also found that the lawsuit was filed within the one-year limitation periods. This verdict was then reversed by the trial court in favor of Medlantic.
1) Essay Using the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), make the argument for legal formalism (original intent) of the Connecticut law banning contraceptive information or devices. Then make the opposite argument based on legal realism. The case came about when the state Planned Parenthood League opened a clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1961, two staff members, Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, were arrested and fined under a rarely used law for giving advice and a prescription[->0] for a contraceptive[->1] to a married couple. The defendant argued that she had a constitutional right to privacy that was violated by enforcement of the 1879 state law. (Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case.
Subsequently, the clerk filed a lawsuit against Burt for money damages. Classify each legal action. - The District Attorney's case was a criminal case; the cashier's lawsuit was a civil case ● Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Under the law, an employee has only a certain number of days from the alleged discriminatory act to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. How would these laws be classified?
Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data.
Generally, the case focused on Federal Express Corporation’s request for expedited discovery of depositions and document production, and preliminary injunction. The defendant claimed that the preliminary injunction was invalid since it had discontinued use of the name Federal Espresso in June 1997. Furthermore, the defendant claimed additional charges of attorney-client privilege, trade secret, use of broad language, irrelevance, and burdensome litigation. Evidence was presented at hearings held on January 16, 1998 and February 3, 1998 with oral arguments on March 2, 1998. The U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary S. Pooler denied Federal Express Corporation’s request for a preliminary injunction and all associated claims.
She is unhappy about the unnecessary expense this statute imposes on her business and intends to file suit against the state of Confusion in an attempt to overturn the statute. In this paper I will discuss, which court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and whether the statute set-up by the state of Confusion is constitutional. I will list the stages in a civil suit and explore what provisions of the United States Constitution will be functional by the courts to determine the statute’s validity. Because the state of Confusion set- up this law, most likely they will not bulge in changing the law. Especially if one views that Tanya Trucker is the only complainant.
There were pictures taken of the merchandise and and some were in the paper labeling him as a thief. They said he had stolen $50,000 worth of merchandise from Wal-mart, which of course was not true at all he had the receipts to prove it. When the jury was instructed to make their verdict they were told that for the intrusion invasion of privacy that David Clark had the burden of proving six essential propositions to collect damages. 1) David had sustained damages- which in this case he did he lost all of his belongings and was labeled a thief and he also lost his job. 2) That Wal-mart intruded physically or otherwise, without permission, invitation, or valid consent upon the solitude of David Clark- which in this case he told them they could check and see that he did not have any fishing equipment, but they went further then what they were suppose to and intruded on his personal environment.
“The preferred and easiest method of concealing liabilities/expenses is to simply fail to record them” (Wells, 2011, p. 14). There are different types of evidence a fraud investigator must collect depending on what the company is trying to conceal. In Apollo’s case, it looks as if the company is trying to conceal a liability they owe for a shipment from Anglonesian Rehabilitation and Reprogramming Institute (ARRI) in December. According to the case, “Apollo personnel counted all inventory, including a shipment of shoes costing $8,434,889.09 that was received on December 31” (University of Phoenix, 2009, p. 90). However, according to Apollo’s Accounts Payable Schedule for the year ended December 31, 2011, there is no money owed to ARRI.
Wal-Mart was pleaded guilty to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act. They dumped illegal waste in 16 counties all around the U.S. They dumped over two million pounds of regulated pesticides. This was not good for Wal-Mart because officials say a Solano county boy was seen playing with fertilizer near a Wal-Mart garden section (O’Donnell 1). Wal-Mart agreed to pay $81 million and $27.6 million to settle allegations (O’Donnell 1).