In the state of Ohio, the courts have taken a pro-business approach, at least regarding the nursing home industry, as is evidenced, by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case, the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home, an Ohio nursing home, by a former resident, Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home, she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence by the nursing home staff. Oakridge entered a motion seeking a stay of the court proceedings because, Hayes had signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any malpractice claims she might assert against Oakridge would be resolved…
On Monday August 21st, A body of a 5-year-old boy was found dead in A drive way of a home in West Mobile. The next day a daycare worker had been arrested and charged with abuse of a corpse.…
In 1980, patient (plaintiff) James Johnson filed suit against Misericordia Community Hospital alleging medical malpractice. The suit specifically alleged corporate negligence in the appointment of Dr. Lester V. Salinksy (independent member) to the medical staff at Misericordia Community Hospital. During the surgery, Dr. Salinsky severed the femoral artery, resulting in partial paralysis for Johnson (casebriefs.com). Ultimately, Johnson suffered a permanent paralytic condition to his right thigh muscles with resultant atrophy and weakness as well as a loss of function after undergoing hip surgery performed by Dr. Salinsky (Showalter,…
In Minnesota vs. Timothy Dickerson, two police officers parked in an unmarked car, outside of an apartment building known for trafficking contraband substances, did willfully and knowingly stop and frisk respondent due to suspicious and evasive behavior, exiting the twelve-unit apartment building. The officers felt that upon his exit and approach towards patrol car, and eye contact with one of the officers, he turned and proceeded into a side alley. Officers then pursued respondent feeling his suspicious and evasive behavior was probable of being criminal in nature. They pulled their car into the alley and immediately stopped and searched the defendants outer clothing finding no weapons. During the cursory search one officer testified that he had felt a cellophane bag containing crack cocaine later when weighed a total of 1/5th of a gram was found. The officers claimed it within their scope to search and seize what the officer suspected to be drugs inside the defendants clothing.…
Michael Harrison Jr. the plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC against the defendant Killeen Fast- Food Restaurant (Wendy’s) for refusal to hire him based on his hearing impairment despite his qualifications. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Waco Division, the general manager of the restaurant refused to hire…
Facts: William E. Story had promised his nephew, William E. Story II, $5,000 if his nephew would abstain from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached 21 years of age. The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter dated February 6, 1875 in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promise. The uncle died a couple years later without sending the money to the nephew.…
In the present case, the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race, sex, national origin, religion, and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case, Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though, his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some, but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard, this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school, so the courts would have to wait for a later case to set a precedent. In Bakke v. UC Board of Regents, the court would decide that at place of higher education can use race in their admission policy, but it cannot be the lone deciding factor. When the university…
Summary of Key Facts A. Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School, a public…
The respondent Andrews, a British subject permanently resident in Canada. Andrews met all the requirements for the admission to the British Columbia Bar except for Canadian Citizenship, section 42(a) of Barrister and Solicitors Act. He commenced legal action for a declaration that the requirement violated section 15(1) Of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms; this was dismissed at the trial but allowed on the appeal. The appellants, the Law society of British Columbia and Attorney General of British Columbia, appealed against this declaration that the requirement for Canadian Citizenship infringes the section 15(1) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.…
Facts: Groups of the same sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriages that occurred in jurisdiction that provide for such marriages. James Obergefell (plaintiffs) in each case argued that the states statutes violated Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverse and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violated the couples fourteenth amendment rights to equal protection and due process.…
The issue at hand here concerned two points. The first one is whether or not the US Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has violated the four amendment prohibition the arrest of any individual without just cause ( the right of the people to be secure in their persons). The second point concerned a probable immunity against lawsuit, granted by law, for all government officials in the exercise of the…
St. Cyr, which questioned the district court?s jurisdiction under the general habeas corpus statute when dealing with illegal immigration and anti-terrorist groups. Zadvydas v. Davis, asking whether the Attorney General has the authority to arrest a removable alien after the removal period or not. Matthews vs Eldridge, dealing with an inevidentary hearing to a disabilities beneficiary being terminated violating the Due Process of the Fifth Amendment (Cornell Law, 2004).…
In Dred Scott v. Sandford the case started in 1856 and ended in 1857. “The Supreme Court decided that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.” - Alex McBride (McBride 2006, 411). The verdict was unlawful and absurd.…
The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its choice, deciding that Dred Scott was as yet a slave in March of 1857. Much more disputably, the Court decided that the Missouri Compromise was illegal; that all blacks, free or oppressed, would never be United States subjects, and that Congress did not have the privilege to choose the bondage question in the regions. This stacked choice, which should settle the servitude question for the last time and all the more significantly relieve the country's developing sectional emergency, wound up making more strain in the nation between the North and South. The response to the choice changed by district and political gathering, with it being scrutinized by northerners and Republicans, and commended by southerners and…
Individuals break crimes all the time but some cases take America by storm with the mass amount of media coverage. The Scott Peterson trail is a prime example of a criminal case that took the nation by storm. What makes the Scott Peterson trail special is the fact that for the first time in California an individual was sentenced to death based solely on circumstantial evidence. In this paper I will be discussing the Scott Peterson case in three key areas background/summary, evidence, and finally crime elements.…