it.
it.
Facts: Judd approached the defendant in an attempt to calm him. The defendant then punched Judd in the face. A brief fight ensured between Judd and the defendant during which a shelf with ceramic mugs fell on the floor and shattered. Doucette, Anderson and Potkaj attempted to break up the fight. Anderson and Potkaj grabbed Judd by his arms to restrain him while Doucette came up behind the defendant and wrapped his arms around him to stop the fight. The defendant broke free from Doucette and attacked Judd again. Judd freed himself from Potkaj and Anderson in response to the defendant’s attack and punched the defendant again. The defendant then picked up a kitchen knife with an eight inch blade from the counter and strode six feet from the counter toward Judd, swinging and stabbing with the knife.…
The generalization about NCRL’s argument regarding “Massachusetts Citizens for Life” does not hold up in court. Nonprofit advocacy corporations, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals.…
Relief Sought: Ted Chimel brought light to the fact that police officers arresting a suspect at that suspect’s home could not search the entire home without a warrant to search but may search just the area in the vicinity of that suspect…
Suffering a personal injury or a devastating accident can place the victim in severe financial hardship. Many victims attempt to recover financial compensation for the injury through legal channels. The problem is that financial bills and obligations do not go on hold while a plaintiff’s case makes its way through the legal system. Lawsuit funding is designed to help alleviate the financial stress and burden for the plaintiff. Lawsuit funding provides emergency funds for the plaintiff.…
PUSEY, EXR., APPELLANT, v. BATOR ET AL.; GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, APPELLEE. [Cite as Pusey v. Bator (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 275.] Torts — Wrongful death — Employer hires independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property — Inherently dangerous work exception — If someone is injured by weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, employer is vicariously liable even though guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. (No. 00-1787 — Submitted October 30, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 98 C.A. 55. __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT When an employer hires an independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property, the inherently-dangerous-work exception is triggered such that if someone is injured by the weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, the employer is vicariously liable even though the guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. __________________ DOUGLAS, J. At all times relevant herein, defendant-appellee, Greif…
Under North Carolina law is Brad correct? That dismissing the action on the ground that the complaint was not specific enough and needs to be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon relief should be granted? Failure to state a claim is frequently raised as a defnse in civil litigation.…
| |74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 |…
Although corporations are comprised of individuals, it is highly debated if corporations deserve the same rights that the Constitution grants each American citizen. The First Amendment gives each citizen equal opportunity to pursue his or her own ambitions in coalition with their great nation. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case No. 08-205, the Supreme Court validated the idea of political spending as free speech and abolished the ban on corporate political spending. Corporations are imperative to an industrialized society, but they should not have the right to control political decisions, especially when they are motivated by selfish and monetary reasons. Corporate speech involves individual speech, but it does not have the human voice. The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect the rational freedoms of an actual human voice.…
What is the difference between a criminal and a civil case? Criminal cases require that a verdict be made without a “shadow of doubt,” but in civil cases that is not the case. Professor Nesson in “A Civil Action” states that civil cases only need around 51 percent to determine liability. This book was a very interesting read because it takes us through the different parts of a civil trial and how the case even got started. It is especially important to consider from a management perspective when determining the social and ethical responsibilities of businesses.…
‘Access to Justice means everyone should have access to advice and assistance from lawyers.’ (Classroom material p.1) Legal advice is important to civil cases but even more in criminal cases where liberty of a person is at stake because they would have committed a crime and they might go to prison for it therefore in criminal cases it’s vital for a person to receive legal funding. Poor and less educated people are denied access to justice as it is difficult for them to get advice or for them to be offered assistance.…
As American citizens, we withhold freedoms like no other country. When we begin to abuse these freedoms, that’s when injustice occurs. The definition of Injustice is lack of fairness. The late Dr. Martin Luther King, JR. stated that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.” There are many categories’ that can fall into Injustice.…
For most individuals, it is class-action efforts that lead to progress for both their collective group and themselves. Whether we examine the African American Civil Rights Movement, the LGBT movement, or the Women’s Rights Movement, each was an effort staged and operated by many which led to the largest benefits being recognized on the individual level. The major component of these movements, however, is not the process which the groups fight for their rights, or the law’s judgment that decides that they are indeed entitled to what they requested. It is the recognition of rights of the people by the people that leads to the informal and thorough attainment of rights. I believe that individuals and identity groups have a symbiotic relationship where individuals need to have the legal consciousness necessary for form larger identity groups, while once constructed these groups are able to persuade the non-minority population to identity with and eventually recognize the rights of the group at the individual level.…
Almost a century ago, back to the time when the modern corporation was created, sprung the Progressive era that flourished with political reforms and social activism. Along with the corporations also came laws that have always prohibited or limited the use of corporate money in elections as a result of Progressive reform’s efforts to eliminate social and political problems, especially corruption. These specific laws have been in place up until January 21, 2010 during the landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, when the Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 majority that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. As a result, the court also overruled its 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and partially overruled the 2003 case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. The case formed when prior to the 2008 primary elections, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation produced a 90 minute documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. The movie conveyed opinions about whether Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, was fit for the presidency. However, The Movie falls within the definition of "electioneering communications" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a federal act designed to prevent "big money" from wrongly influencing federal elections-which, as well as other things, prohibits corporate financing of "electioneering communications" and enforces “mandatory disclosure and disclaimer requirements on such communications.” The District Court for the District of Columbia denied Citizens United's preliminary injunction motion to enjoin the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") from enforcing these provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign…
70). The group is seeking for new methods of facilitating fairness by compelling the public to think and see in a different perspective. Based on the impact which the group has been able to achieve, the future of the movement might be based on a mission directed at moving communities with common goals to go an extra length to demand their rights. In addition, the movement is geared towards attaining self-love for the black people who can spread to be a wave which may not be stopped by any force (Bailey et al. 70). The key agenda of the group will go into fighting for the contemporary injustices affecting a black man which includes the social, economic and political injustices. The 21st-century injustices aimed at a Black man calls for strict actions to counter the modern racial profiling of the US…
Evaluate the Effectiveness of Law Reform in Dealing with Defences to Criminal Charges in the Criminal Justice System.…