Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Yes, Officer Smith had a legal right to request the driver out of the vehicle for a pat-down. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of dealing with armed and dangerous individuals. The court stated that an officer does not need probable cause to arrest in order to conduct a reasonable search for weapons as long as the suspicion is developed by factual information. In this fact pattern, Officer Smith acted on facts that a car matching the description of the automobile current pulled over of possibly being involved in a previous case involving a fellow officer murdered on the road side.
Bootleggers use this for the own profit. It is incredibly important to give credit to the originator for their work. If someone was to be caught committing these acts will cause the losing the trust of others, academic standing, credibility, and/or sometimes their freedom. Quiz: You Be the Judge The Verdict is In! Quiz results for: Kimberly Whitehead Question 1: Which of the following is a requirement for including verbatim (word for word) information from an outside source?
If he is responsible he should be ‘blamed’ through a conviction and then ‘punished’ with his sentence. The sentence is deserved because of the initial fault in his conduct. The a/r of a crime is usually in the form of a voluntary act, where the deft is in control of his actions. In the case of Hill v Baxter, a driver who was attacked by a swarm of bees was said to be no longer acting voluntarily, and thus was not at fault. However, fault can arise from a persons omission (a failure to act) also, but in such cases the deft will be held less responsible as he had less control over his actions.
NEWCORP LEGAL SCENARIOS BUSINESS LAW Legal Encounter 1 In the given situation NewCorp is liable for having to follow the guidelines of what the handbook states on the given situation with Pat. Pat has the right to sue NewCorp given the fact that when he was hired on he signed the handbook which in it, it has a section that is Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan. In this section of the handbook it states that if any employee has a deficiency in their job they are to be put on a Corrective Action Plan and if the performance does not improve they can be terminated. Therefore in a court NewCorp can be found in breach of contract, since the employee handbook is a signed contract. As well as the fact that Pat feel that because of him voicing an opinion on the school board, which has nothing to do with NewCorp, this may
Doe knowing operated a motor vehicle while impaired and under the influence of an intoxicating substance it will tie to our argument that he knowingly and willingly breach his duties spelled out in the elements above. We must continue to recognize that because the State of Maryland follows the antiquated comparative negligence standard system, the threat does exist to have all liabilities dismissed in favor of the defendant. Had our accident taken place in a state that recognizes the comparative negligence standard our case would be significantly stronger. The reason for this is that both Plaintiff and Defendant’s negligence is computed and the liability for damages is distributed accordingly. There are two types under this standard which is Pure or Modified comparative negligence.
Intentional Tort M230/HSC2641 October 20, 2013 Robert Feightner Intentional Tort Intentional tort is a deliberate or premeditated injury that is inflicted on one person by another individual. It can be separated into six categories, which are assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation of character, fraud, and invasion of privacy. A person who is suffering from those injuries whether it is mental or physical injuries can file for a tort case, which may result in monetary damages. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff duty of care, caused their injuries, to include, failed to provide proper standard of care (Pearson Education, 2010). An example of intentional tort under the category battery
A tort is committed against an individual or legal entity or company. When a person commits a tort they become liable for damages, damages are compensations usually paid in monetary terms by a person who commits a tort to a the injured person or party who have suffered harm or injury at the expense of an individual’s act or omission. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor. ELEMENTS OF A TORT Tort is a remarkably wide-ranging subject and maybe the most difficult of all legal areas. The question is how we establish liability in in tort.
However, the House of Lords decided to create a new principle of law that stated everyone has a duty of care to their neighbour, and this abled Donoghue to successfully sue the manufacturer for the damages.” In order to prove negligence and claim damages, the plaintiff has to prove a number of elements to the court. These are: * the defendant owed them a duty of care, * the defendant breached that duty of care, and * they suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of the breach. As we saw earlier, the first element of the duty of care was created in the Donoghue case. The House of Lords stated that every person owes duty of care to their neighbour. The Lords went on to explain that ‘neighbour’ actually means ‘person so closely and directly
The Consequences of the Criminal Mind Davina Fitzgerald Thomas Research Paper General Psychology Miller-Motte Technical College THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRIMINAL MIND 2 What are consequences? Consequences are a result of a recent occurring incident. Results of a consequence can either be good or bad, but in most cases they are not a positive result. The consequences reflect the severity of the actions, that take place and comes with different levels of penalty. For example, reckless driving could result in a car accident.
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.