2. Plaintiff: Rea Defendant: Paulson Facts: - home had been left equally to four children - moved in with Larry and was worried about losing her home, Larry took over complete care of his mother, cut his siblings out and got a new deed that his mother signed Issue: Did Larry exert undue influence over his mother Decision: Larry was trusted by his mother and did have undue infuence over her 3.5and the signing of the deed 3. Plaintiff: Maroun Defendant: Wyreless Systems, Inc. Facts: - Maroun was hired by Wyreless for $300,000 per year, a $300,000 bonus for successful organization of the company, 15% of equity which will be tied to agreeable milestones, ect. - Maroun was terminated in February 2001 and is suing for unreceived salary payments, 15% equity, and bank account money that would be his if the required capital was not raised to start the company - Maroun received a judgement to receive the earned salary Issue: Was the employment agreement fraudulent in its promises? Decision: There was no fraud committed by Wyreless and all claims had intent and were completed 4.
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.
He asked if he can come inside the house and secure the house and to make sure that no one entered his home. The owner invited him in and when he entered the house he immediately smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana. He advised the owner that his backup officer is standing outside the backdoor and the owner opened the back door for him. The backup officer confirmed what he smelled that it was indeed burnt marijuana. They did not address the issue of the smell of burnt marijuana but they left the home.
An 89-year-old retired white widow lives in a large city. She retired from her job as a unit secretary in a community hospital approximately 10 years ago. Before working at her job in the hospital, she worked with her husband in the dry cleaning business that they owned. She lives in a two-family house: her son and daughter-in-law live in the upstairs apartment, and she lives in the downstairs apartment. She smokes two to three packs of cigarettes per day and has smoked since she was 17 years old.
Marian was 11 years old and her parents forced her to marry a blind, 41 years old. Her price was $1,200. When she was living with her husband and his mother, they began to beat her when she failed to conceived a child. After 2 years of abuse, she sought help at police station in Kabul after the police delivered her to a residential neighborhood " Women's shelters", something that was unknown in Afghanistan before 2003. Marian said she felt fortunate to have found refuge.
Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project). However, they could not convict her due to her fourth amendment right which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). This case was important in defining the use of the “exclusionary rule”. When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous phone tip of the whereabouts of Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, they were headed straight to the Mapp resident. Officers from the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation Sergeant Carl I. Deleau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Micheal J. Haney surrounded Dollree’s home and requested entry.
The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
Pearson then claimed that the found pants were not his because they had cuffs, and sued the Chungs for $67 million. Issues, Laws and Verdict Roy Pearson sued the Chungs claiming that the Chungs violated D.C. consumer protection laws (Consumer Protection Procedures Act or CPPA). Specifically, that the Chungs committed fraud because they did not live up to the promise of a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign hanging in the store (Bartnoff, 2007, p. 1). In her “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” on the case, Judge Bartnoff (2007) wrote that Pearson expected, “an unconditional warranty that required the defendants to honor any claim by any customer, without limitation, based on the customer’s determination of whatever would make that customer ”satisfied.”” (p. 1) Included in the suit were claims that he had been subject to “mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort” at the hands of the Chungs (O’Rourke, 2007 p.10). So Pearson sued for common law fraud and violations of the CPPA, but did he present enough evidence to support his claims in court?
Graham is liable for theft under the section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 1(1) “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ; and “thief” and “steal” shall be constructed accordingly.” Graham goes into the shop in Meadowhall, a local shopping store and takes two suits into the changing room. He then takes the price tag off of one of the suits and walks out wearing one suit and returning the other. Whilst he wears the other suit assuming the property without the consent of the store’s owner, therefore has no intention in paying for the property. This is an appropriation of Section 3(1) stating that : “Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.” In Morris (1983) case, the defendant was found guilty of theft when he had just switched the price labels from two items on the shelf in the supermarket and then took the lower priced item in his shopping basket.
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.