This court case took place in the United States Supreme Court in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff in this court case is Deborah White, represented by Amanda Babbitt and Jackson Walsh. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, represented by Benjamin Walton and Jordon Van Meter. Deborah White brought this court case to the Supreme Court in order to argue against the summary judgment filed by the defendents. A summary judgment is granted only if all of the written evidence before the court clearly establishes that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the party who requested the summary…
On a gloomy Saturday morning, a badly bruised and distraught Sally Richards stumbled into the doors of UC’s medical hospital, seeking assistance for the terrible incident that she experienced the night before. Standing in front of the triage desk, Sally explained to the hospital secretary how she was sexually assaulted and possibly raped by her ex-boyfriend the night before. Quickly, the hospital secretary called an expedient nurse from the back room and in a flash, Sally was suddenly brought to a private room. With Sally being instructed into the room, she noticed an individual standing across the medical room, who she later learned would be her advocate throughout her examination and during her court case. Throughout the duration of her stay, though distraught, Sally cooperated with the SANE nurses, especially with the physical evidence collection.…
Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite understanding and helpful information defined in the Indiana Dream Shop Act which contains useful knowledge. Mr. Edward Hard did not participate or take on any behavior or actions that provided proof of intoxication. Debora White, the Plaintiff is in search of compensation from the defendants, O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs with the theory that Mr. Patrick Gibbs had concrete awareness of Mr. Edward Hard’s consumption of alcohol. (I.C. 7.1-5-10-15.5, 1996) cites that Mr. Gibbs the defendant have actual knowledge of the person being intoxicated before damages are allowed to be awarded. Practical awareness does not persuade the hindrance nor does individual awareness. Indirect evidence doesn’t support practical awareness only actual knowledge. Individual awareness can sustain the intrusion whereas actual knowledge has to carry through and support the intrusion. Observable dealings with the recognizable events of intoxication are prejudiced according to the 7th Indiana State Circuit Court. In the Supreme Court statue stated prior to the year 1988 common law tolerated practical awareness for intrusions and caused a change in the law for this not to be supported.…
Liberty University presented a case of White v. Gibbs which is about Mrs. Debbie White and Patrick Gibbs under the civil provisions of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. In this case Mrs. Debbie White sued Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Because White and Gibbs do not live in the same states, the suit was brought in diversity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. However, the suit will be decided under Indiana state law. The main goal of this courtroom is to argue the motion for summary judgment which is concerning the case of Mrs. Debbie White, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. In this case, the plaintiff is Debbie White. Two moot court attorneys who are Amanda Babbitt and Jack Walsh represent Mrs. White. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Also two other moot court attorneys who are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter represent the defendants which are Mr. Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern.…
The court system was formed to separate the innocent from the guilty when a disparity has surfaced or developed. In the criminal justice system everyone is entitled to a fair and unbiased trial. We will be identifying and describing the distinguishing features of the major court system ranging from state level, superior court and federal district court through the U.S. Supreme Court. Second we will discuss the key players, jurisdiction rules, and interpretation on issues and the effect of evolving technologies on the court proceeding at all levels in the court system.…
Hello judges, jurors, and everyone else present in this court room today. My name is Dr. Alyssa Diaz and I am an expert witness. I was called here to testify on this court case. Also I am here to inform you how examining a piece of hair from a suspect from a crime can help to find out who actually did commit the crime. There are some basic things that people should know about hair.…
Courtney Lee, a 20-year-old woman, the defendant in this case, was charged with first degree felony for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy , a minor, she was dating. The initial bond was set at $5000 for each count, under the compulsory condition that she not be allowed around any minors. The case was taken back to court because the defendant dishonored the mandate of her release by being…
The 2008 2L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law presented a case which was argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, case number 82A04-8876-CV-285, Deborah White vs. Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a O’Malley’s Tavern.…
As the gavel sounds there is silence in the courtroom. The Judge has made his final decision, and the outcome is life without the possibility of parole. The courtroom is filled with mixed emotions and the prosecution and family have a sense of justice, although the family of the perpetrator feels anguish. Criminal court is perceived as the place of justice where criminals are punished and the victims get closure. This is a simplistic view of how the criminal justice system works; in reality the process is more complicated.…
As discussed in class a simple definition of hearsay would be an out of court statement in which the declarant does not testify in an effort to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words if someone committed a crime and came to me and told me I would not be allowed to testify to that in court because it would be considered hearsay. There has to be a way to prove that the facts are the truth of the matter. The court defines hearsay as being a statement made out of court, which is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The hearsay rule was developed in order to prevent miscarriage of just justice in result of accepted statement of an untested and unsworn statements from and individual not present in…
The significance of observing this courtroom trial was to see the way our federal courts systems work. In this case I saw a criminal law trial, which chapter 15 explains as the branch of the law that deals with disputes or an action involving criminal penalties that regulates the conduct of individuals, defines crimes, and provides punishment for criminal acts. Chapter 15 gave me a better understanding of how…
The Court I attended was Court of Justice. On March 21 2013 after my classes and I got there on time for the court session at 11:00 a.m. It was my first time entering court, the security was very strict, they looked through my purse and made me take everything out of my pockets. After the security check I started looking for courtrooms with trials going on I entered a very interesting Courtroom 10 on the 6th floor. There was many people waiting in that courtroom including attorneys, but the attorneys were standing by the defendants. The trail was open to the public’ the crown stated the facts about the ( ) this wasn’t a jury trail the judge made the decision.…
I was a bit intimated walking in due to how big the courthouse looked, but once I arrived, I went to the help desk and a police officer kindly directed me to the room I was looking for. I was a bit surprised when I walked into the courtroom regarding its size. I expected to be a lot bigger due to the media’s representation of courtrooms on TV shows and movies. The courtroom was very plan looking, but neat. When I first arrived only a few people were present and court was not yet in session. Within fifteen minutes of me arriving, the judge, Rachelle L. Harz, walked in and asked if everyone was ready, however, a juror had not yet arrived, and it took approximately ten more minutes for the juror to arrive, and then court was in session. While waiting for the juror to arrive, the plaintiff’s attorney approached me and he was very pleasant, he asked me what school I attended, what my major was and if I am considering law school. He also pointed out that Montclair State University has a very good paralegal program, which is something that I have been…
On June 10th, I had the opportunity to go to the SF Immigration court on Montgomery Street with a few of my colleagues. I expected the court to be in a standalone building but instead it was spread over two floors in a twenty-five-floor building. The security checks for entering into the court were moderate. Everyone trying to enter the court had to go through a general security check where they walk through a metal detector machine and have their bags go through the x-ray machine. Before we went through the security check, we had to inform the officer on duty that we came to observe the court. Surprisingly I didn’t have to show a state I.D. before entering the court. After clearing the security check, the officer helped us find a courtroom to observe. I was expecting the officers to be harsh and not very helpful but I was surprised and glad to see that all of the…
As we all know that the world of the criminal is always changing and the Law enforcement community needs to change with it. The biggest one would be the courts. There are many things that face the courts today.…