Preview

Court Observation Assignment

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1501 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Court Observation Assignment
Jessica Chiang
Student ID #1361045
Management 200 B: Ken Myer
Court Observation Assignment

On May 7th, 2014 Wednesday, I visited the King County Superior Court in the afternoon. Although criminal trials sound a lot more interesting, the basic law I learned is based on civil law more, therefore I decided to observe the one and only civil trial on that day: “Chism v. Tri-State Construction” trialed by Judge Ken Schubert.
The plaintiff, Geoffrey Chism, represented by attorneys Lindsay Halm and Thomas Breen. The defendant, Tri-State Construction Board of Executives including Ronald Agostino, Tom Agostino and Larry Agostino represented by attorneys Jillian Barron and Larry Agostino.
To begin with, Chism was hired in the beginning of 2009. In October 2011 Ronald Agostino became the President. He granted a compensation of $500,000 to Chism through an oral promise, an express contract. The trial began by Chism suing Tri-State Construction for not giving him the right amount of compensation that they initially agreed on. However, Tri-State Construction made a counterclaim stating that Chism did not did his job properly, thus does not deserve the compensation agreed upon previously. As a result, the burden of proof now shifts to the plaintiff, Chism, to proof that he actually did his job properly not as what Tri-State Construction stated. The general trial proceeding was carried out as the following: the afternoon session of the trial started by Judge Schubert, plaintiff’s attorney and defendant’s attorney discussing the approval of new evidences provided to the trial and other information that either side doesn’t want the juries to know before any discussion. When everything is settled Judge Ken brought the juries back to the courtroom “To honor the juries, Please stand up.” Everyone in the courtroom stood up to welcome the juries back and then the actual trial began. There are 15 juries composed of different races, ages and gender. Each holding a pen and a notebook,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    This case is an interesting one because it gets right into the core of the confliction between the proprieties of contractual agreement. This case is focused primarily on Osborne Development Corp. and the multiple defects customers are experiencing with their homes. These upset customers are suing this Corporation in attempts to collect reparations for the discrepancies faced. The homeowners who purchased homes form Osborne Development Corp. (ODC) negligently purchased these homes. According to the Home Buyers Warranty ( HBW), “ Any and all claims disputes and controversies by or between the Homeowner, the Builder, the Warrant Insure and/or HBW…

    • 527 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Huether moved to dismiss based on failure to state cause for action. The court dismissed the case. Holy Cross Parish took this case to the appeals court stating that there was an error in law made. Holy Cross Parish, the appellant, has made it known that the contractors they hired failed to disclose any information pertaining the damages and irregularities. The appellant had the idea that the job would be performed correctly and no issues were brought to their eyes. The contractor also knew of the issues but did not inform anything to the appellant which was misleading. Also the architect and the appellant had a fiduciary relationship but because he remained silent about the final product that the contractor conducted, he has misled and created a breach of fiduciary duty to the appellant. The court of appeals has reverse this case based on the facts…

    • 317 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by hospital employees while she was hospitalized. The defendants were granted a dismissal of the case for non pros. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff failed to meet her requirement to file a certificate of merit within 60 days. As a result, the Court of Common Pleas,…

    • 688 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    FACTS: In 1995 William Brotby was hired by Computer Task Group, Inc. (CTG) as an information technologies consultant. Upon hiring, Brotby had to sign an agreement stating that he would be restricted to work for any CTG customers if he left the company. No more than two years later, Brotby left CTG and began to work for one of CTG’s customers known as Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. CTG, plaintiff, filed a suit against Brotby, defendant, in a federal district court alleging breach of contract. During the production of discovery, Brotby refused to fully respond to CTG’s interrogatories, never gave truthful answers, filed unwarranted motions, made flimsy objections, and never disclosed all of the information that CTG sought. Brotby was fined twice by the court and was issued five separate orders ordering him to cooperate. Because of Brothby’s continuous refusal to cooperate, CTG eventually filed a motion to enter default judgment against him in 1999. The court granted the motion; however, Brotby appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The case that is being tried is case, 82A04-8876-CV-285, Deborah White vs. John Daniels and O 'Malley 's Tavern, and is being argued before a mock U.S. District Court, in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff in this case is Deborah White, and her attorneys are Amanda Babbit and Jackson Walsh. The attorneys for the defendants, Patrick Daniels and O 'Malley 's Tavern, are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter.…

    • 2181 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    ADJ Midterm

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    was presented, it was a civil case in terms of child custody and a request of trial by jury.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    -The court interpreted the plain view rule, for the offer it is a risk but after…

    • 690 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Those that have not been exposed to a jury trial might be rather shocked how to process works, not only in criminal matters but also in civil matters as in the case…

    • 522 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Courtroom Observsation

    • 1477 Words
    • 6 Pages

    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.…

    • 1477 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    As we walked into the jury room, after hearing the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, I had already decided how I would vote and, honestly, I determined I was not going to be swayed. We swiftly chose a foreman by appointing the one, who had been given the jury instructions, to that position. Next, we read the jury instructions out loud, in order to remember and understand the definition of each charge. Debate over the meaning of the instructions ensued for a short amount of time before we dove into determining guilt or innocence. Everyone was given a chance to discuss the case and, personally, I felt comfortable entering the discussion and debating the case. After discussion, we voted and were evenly split among guilty or not guilty. Next, we…

    • 661 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Jury Trial Analysis Paper

    • 1200 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.…

    • 1200 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Court Observation Paper

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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…

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Traco vs Arrow

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee subcontractor, finding that promissory estoppel was a viable cause of action in a bid construction case. The court found that the award of damages based on this theory was factually supported by the evidence, and that there was statutory authority for the award of attorneys' fees. The determination of the rate of prejudgment interest also was proper.…

    • 565 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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…

    • 575 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays

Related Topics