Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
Vineyards‚ Inc. Petitioner V. Commissioner of Internal Revenue‚ Respondent § § § § § § § § § § § Docket No. Petition Miles Raymond (“Miles”) the Petitioner‚ by his attorney‚ David Nguyen‚ hereby petitions for a redetermination of the deficiencies the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”) has set forth in the notice of deficiency dated January 25‚ 2013. The notice was sent via the IRS Los Angeles‚ California office. The Petitioner request that this case be conducted
Premium Law United States Jury
Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say‚ “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal‚ but it has never said how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially‚ the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through
Premium American Civil War African American Slavery
Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a case enacted by‚ “Gonzalo Mendez‚ William Guzman‚ Frank Palomino‚ Thomas Estrada‚ and Lorenzo Ramirez” who “filed suit on behalf of their fifteen…children and five thousand other minor children of ‘Mexican and Latin descent’” (Valencia‚ 2010‚ p.23). They sued Westminster school district because they were denying their children the right to enter schools near their home. The school was in California and was predominantly White and did not allow any Mexican American
Premium Racism Race African American
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
2. The plaintiff the United States of America (U.S.) is suing the defendant Burlington Northern Railway / Shell Oil Co. over its participation in creating a significant contamination of soil and groundwater at the Brown & Bryant‚ Inc. (B & B) agricultural chemical distribution business. The plaintiff is requesting that the defendant is responsible for a portion of the cleanup cost because the defendant was a Potential Responsible Party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response‚ Compensation
Premium Legal terms Joint and several liability United States Environmental Protection Agency
Jewelry Appraisals‚ Inc. concluded the ring Plaintiff had in his possession was not the original ring described in the original paperwork from his aunt or in the Krakt and Sons Jewelers appraisal. 17. The ring that Plaintiff had in his possession was appraised by Jewelry Appraisals‚ Inc. at a value of $10‚000. COUNT ONE – BREACH OF BAILMENT CONTRACT 18. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 16
Premium Contract Balance sheet Tax
that his termination was a combination of legitimate reasons for example reducing costs with illegitimate reasons incapacity under a mixed motives theory. Question 3: Falstaff does not meet the requirements to make the claim. According to Grindle v. Watkins‚ courts use the McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate an ADA claim.
Premium Employment Management Law
employees are often eligible to switch job positions within their companies. Even when employment is "at will"‚ permanent employees of large companies are generally protected from abrupt job termination by severance policies‚ like advance notice in case of layoffs‚ or formal discipline procedures. They may be eligible to join a union‚ and may enjoy both social and financial benefits of their employment. Lifelong employment facilitates long-term growth for employees‚ companies and industries. It develops
Premium Motivation Employment