Judy Sal DATE November 11‚ 2011 Costanza v. Seinfield 181 Misc. 2d 562; 693 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1999) Parties: Petitioner: Costanza Respondent: Seinfield Facts: The plaintiff‚ Michael Costanza alleges that the television show‚ “Seinfield” has a character by the name of George Costanza who is based off of him without his consent. The character is bald‚ fat‚ has bad romantic relationships‚ and poor employment. Plaintiff alleges that “Seinfield” has portrayed him in a negative‚ humiliating
Premium Jerry Seinfeld George Costanza Comedy
offensively‚ involving actual or perceived race‚ color‚ religion‚ gender identity‚ or national origin. Through the critical analysis of Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ it argues that an important element which is that the First Amendment does not protect violence. It enhances the maximum penalty for act motivated by a discriminatory point of view. IRAC Analysis Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ 508 U.S. 476 (1993) Fact: A young black man his name is Mitchell‚ and a group of his friends beat up a withe boy in Wisconsin. Mitchell
Premium
CASE: EEOC v. Target 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21483 7th Circuit Facts of the Case: In early 2000‚ an African-American name James Daniel‚ Jr applied for an Executive Team Leader position with Target. He was given tests‚ which he passed placing him in a very high percentile of those who have been previously tested. Unfortunately he was not hired‚ and was given the explanation of not meeting the requirements of the position. Daniels did not receive any feedback as to what requirement he was meeting
Premium United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Appeal
Bonnie Wittenburg‚ Plaintiff‚ v. American Express Financial Advisors‚ Inc.‚ Defendant. Civ. No. 04-922 (JNE/SRN) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FACTS OF THE CASE: In the case of Wittenburg v. American Express Financial Advisors‚ Inc. (AEFA)‚ Bonnie Wittenburg was an employee for AEFA in their Minneapolis office. The plaintiff was hired by the company in November of 1998 at the age of forty-six to serve as an Equity Research Analyst in AEFA’s Equity Investment
Premium Law Corporation Plaintiff
I have gone through all the assigned cases and I must admit it constituted one of the most challenging I have read thus far. Most of the legal jargons are notoriously difficult to comprehend. However‚ I braved the terms and what not coupled with patience and I did find a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. Among the three cases‚ I find King v. Burwell case interesting‚ in a sense‚ for the reason that the arguments raised in the case were about the subsidies for The Patient Protection and Affordable
Premium Health care Medicine Health economics
Vanessa Pettengill February 25‚ 2015 Professor Frederick W. ODell Case Brief Case: Texas v. Johnson Citation: 491 U.S. 397 Year: 1989 Facts: While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas‚ Texas in 1984‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was the only one out of 100 protestors arrested for desecration of a venerated object‚ charged with violating the Texas Penal Code Ann 42.09(a)(3)(1989). He publicly burned an American Flag as a means of political protest. The purpose of the demonstration
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Phillip Rimmer Case Brief 10/24/10 1. Citation United States v. Collier‚ Jr. 29 M.J. 365 (1990) 2. Parties. United States‚ Appellee Sergeant William H. Collier‚ Jr.‚ United States Army‚ Appellant 3. Facts 1. The court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. 2. The court of Military Review misapplied the test established by United States v. Brenizer‚ 20 M.J. 78 (CMA 1985) 3. Prosecution fails to properly utilize procedures to introduce evidence
Premium United States Appeal Jury
distress to another. To be actionable (capable of serving as the ground for a lawsuit)‚ the conduct must be so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds the bounds of decency accepted by society. Business Law Today‚ 10th Edition‚ pg. 99. In the case of Kiwanuka v. Bakilana‚ Bakilana did cause emotional distress to Ms. Kiwanuka by threatening her with deportation‚ making her work twenty-four hours a day‚ grabbing her by the shirt collar‚ and taking her passport and papers which are extreme and outrageous
Premium Slavery Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
behalf that it was an entire and indivisible contract for the erection and installation of two lifts‚ and that the materials furnished were only in execution of the works contract and there was no sale of any goods and materials by the applicants. In case the determination was that it was not an entire and indivisible contract but constituted two separate contracts‚ one for the sale of
Premium Contract
Marbury V. Madison (1803) Facts: Congress enacted the Organic Act which authorized John Adams to appoint forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Colombia. In the confusion of the Adams administration’s last days in office‚ Marshall (then Secretary of State)‚ failed to deliver some of these commissions. When the new administration came into office‚ James Madison‚ the new Secretary of State‚ acting under orders from Jefferson‚ refused to deliver at least five of the commissions. William
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison Law