Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co. 473 U.S. 568 (1985) Judicial History: Under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), manufacturers were required to register their pesticides. EPA had a “me-too” process that allowed for the pesticide equivalent of generic drugs. Monsanto Corporation sued because EPA was making them publicize trade secrets, which they claimed was a taking. 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.
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
Phar mor Case Phar-Mor,Inc. : Accounting Fraud, Litigation, and Auditor Liability (4) Coopers & Lybrand was sued under both federal statutory and state common law. The judge ruled that under Pennsylvania law the plaintiffs were not primary beneficiaries. Pennsylvania follows the legal precedent inherent in the Ultramares Case. (a) In jurisdictions following the Ultramares doctrine, under what conditions can auditors be held liable under common law to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries?
Business Regulation Simulation Business Law/531 Althea Portlock, Danielle Moore, Heather Randall, Nicole Schiffer, June 22, 2012 Jana Allen Introduction Legal Issues Strict Liability- a tort doctrine that makes manufactures etc., of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect (irrespective of fault) Product Liability-the liability of manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products. Negligence - a tort related to defective products in which the defendant has breached a duty of due care and caused harm to the plaintiff Regulatory Compliance- The company was cited by EPA for violation of discharge norms. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) levels were extremely high.
A. the fair-weather liberal B. the all-weather liberal C. the timid bigot D. all of these 4. Who formulated a typology that shows how prejudice and discrimination are related but not the same thing? A. W.E.B. DuBois B. Charles Cooley C. Robert Merton D. Richard LaPiere 5. Which of the following statements is FALSE regarding the authoritarian personality? A.
See also the first instance approach of Hughes J in Millward v Oxfordshire County Council [2004] EWHC 455 (QB). A primary difficulty in establishing liability is proving that the breach of duty caused the harm to the Claimant. This is a recurring problem in cases where the breach consists of a failure to provide adequate information or training. As assaults tend to occur quickly and unexpectedly it is difficult to prove that a suitably informed and trained Claimant would not have been assaulted anyway. Longmore LJ in Vaile quoted Toulson LJ at paragraph 28 of the case of Drake v Harbour [2008] ALL ER (D) 283: “Where a Claimant proves both a Defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, this will ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the Claimant is unable to prove positively the precise mechanism.” In other words, common sense can be applied to the facts of a case and a Claimant can
According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion. This law prohibits B-type hitch fittings. Only one manufacturer in the state of Confusion makes this type of hitch. This creates problems such as expense, complications of trade, time consumption, and business transactions. Because of all these problems along with unconstitutional barriers through this statute, there is a significant chance that Tanya will win this case.
In the end, I had an employee who had violated the NDA, Aaron Web, and another employee who had broken the law for tdhe company, Jamal Moore. * The first step taken in the case was to figure out what the problem really was and what issue applied to the problem. My decision on this was, “Whether you should use the information obtained by Jamal Moore to discipline Aaron Webb for violating the NDA.” Personally, I was worried that if I knowingly used the illegally-gathered information from Jamal against Aaron, would be unethical and pose a possible legitimate for Aaron against the company. * The second step was to identify the stakeholders. It
The extreme of negligence, then, is gross-negligence. In other words, gross-negligence is complete and total disregard for the other person’s safety, failure to use caution, failure to provide reasonable care and has the potential to cause great harm to that person (Guido, 2010). An example of gross-negligence would be a surgeon reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or a school bus driver reporting to work under the influence of
Math 234 - HW#2 Name _____________________ 10:30 12:30 12:00T-TH You must show your answers clearly and use proper notation. I will not accept work or answers squeezed in the margin 1. Many companies test prospective employees for drug use. Suppose a company uses a test that is 98% accurate – that is it correctly identifies an applicant as a user or nonuser with probability .98. The test is performed on each applicant twice and the outcomes are independent.