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.
Holding The trial court found that the defedant was negligent as both attorney and officer and fined him $243,722.99. Musselman appealed this decision saying that he lacked the capacity to act as officer and/or attorney. Rationale The trial court found that their decision will be affirmed because not only did Atty Musselman have the capacity to work as attorney and officer but he did so and he did not inform the corporation that Hurt wanted to be ecused from all personal
Together, these suggest that Wolsey didn’t let anything get in the way of his quest to achieve justice for all, even if it gained him powerful enemies and went against the tradition of the time. Although source three does agree that, in his unconventional way, “he [Wolsey] punished the rich”, it disagrees with sources one and two in relation to the question because it claims
I disagree that Hume's arguments to causation are successful to a full extent due to the fact that Hume's challenges criticise causation from the point of view that empirical evidence is our only source of knowledge, suggesting we cannot know whether the effect due to cause can be discovered because "the effect is different from the cause, and so can never be discovered." Yet why should we apply the limitations of our ability to state that God does not exist? To further evaluate, Hume states we are bound by empirical data and so we will only be able to 'induce' that the regress of cause and effect exists and so this regress falls foul to Hume's Fork. The criticism of Hume's challenge is formulated in the sense that because philosophically and empirically "we will never know the true origins of the universe" it does not mean that "the universe is the "brute fact" as stated by B. Russell. A second challenge of Hume is that we are able to possibly imagine that something can cause itself into existence.
B. Mr. Johnson has no case for retaliatory discharge because merely testifying on behalf of someone else is insufficient involvement in a discrimination lawsuit to get protection against retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. C. Mr. Johnson has no case for retaliatory discharge because he is an employment-at-will employee. D. Mr. Johnson may have a case because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects an employee who participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing on a colleague's complaint of discrimination. 15. The employment-at-will doctrine means that A.
Chestnut contended that Mr. Reeves was terminated for inaccurate record keeping. Actions taken against Mr. Reeves were not in compliance with the federal employment laws: prima facie case of discrimination, sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation and the respondent’s explanation for his decision was pre-textual. Mr. Reeves was able to prove that the stated reasons was not the real reason for his discharge and age discrimination was the real reason for termination. REEVES v. SANDERSON A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Sanderson stated that their reason for terminating Mr. Reeves was due to inaccurate record keeping.
In most television programmes homosexual men are seen as the weak character that is usually going through a form of bullying or rejection. Marxist’s would argue that the bourgeoisies (mostly white men) are the people that own these television companies and they want to keep reminding people that gay people are oppressed as they don’t want them to become too powerful. Television programmes (especially soaps) tend to use the storyline of gay people coming out as one of their most emotive storylines because they try to display ‘problems’ that people face in day to day life. For instance the storyline in Eastenders was how Johnny was coming out and his mother didn’t know how to handle nor accept the fact he was gay. There were many emotional crying scenes where his mother thought it was her fault that he was ‘different’.
He needs this contract to keep his job but not “coming clean” is jeopardizing his sense of ethics. What should he do? An ethical dilemma is a situation where there is no right and wrong in relation to a decision and therefore a solution is not quickly achieved (Shaw, Barry, Sansbury, 2009). Ethical dilemma can also be defined by a sense of moral obligation. Kent’s situation does consist of several ethical dilemmas as his accomplishments since joining Dura- Stick have been mediocre at best and he fears that his time at Dura-Stick might be limited unless he starts closing big accounts such as the project proposed from Spray-On.
MSM blood donor controversy Amid the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the early 1980s, the FDA banned blood donations from men who'd had sex with another man after 1977. The policy remains in effect to this day. Gay rights advocates protested the ban as both unfair and unwise, an ethical problem, and a discrimination controversy. The men who have sex with men (MSM) blood donor controversy is a dispute over prohibitions on donations of blood or tissue for transplantation. MSM is a classification of men who engage (or have engaged in the past) in sex with other men, regardless of whether they identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.
And secondly, preventive detention assumes that the offender is capable of moral self-governance. Simply put, the offender lives and knows what is right and what is wrong. Yet the problems with these assumptions are, what if the offender is not responsible for his or her action or what if they aren’t capable of moral self-governance? For example, what if the offender was deemed insane while he or she committed the act in question? Since the law states that the offender is legally not responsible for the action then that offender absolutely cannot be held responsible by any means.