In Wyman v. James, the Supreme Court held that the beneficiary of the Aid to the Families with the Dependent Children must allow a house visit by a case manager, when the law requires it, or relinquish her entitlement to open help. The Supreme Court did not view it as a pursuit in fourth amendment terms. Regardless of the possibility that the visit were a pursuit, the Court said it was sensible: it was made for the advantage of the kid; it was "a gentle means" of guaranteeing that duty stores are appropriately spent; the case manager was not a "uniformed authority"; and the beneficiary had the decision of summoning her entitlement to decline or relinquishing the advantages. Three contradicting Justices (William Douglas, William Brennan, Thurgood
Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim.
In R v Mokrecovas, a case of rape in which consent was a defence, the issue was if it was open to the defence under section 41 (3) (a) to cross examine the complainant about an allegation that she had consensual sexual relations with the accused’s brother on two occasions during 12 hours before alleged rape. It was held that the cross examination about sexual intercourse with the accused’s brother would add nothing to these grounds for allegation. The subsections (3)(b) and (c) were enacted to reverse what was decided in R v Riley. In most of the cases, the jury would most likely infer such behaviour by virtue of the other evidence in the case.
After a thorough analysis of the facts of the case Resurfice v. Hanke, one can see that the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, to allow the appeal was definitely the right decision. The Supreme court made the right decision in establishing that it was Hanke’s contributory negligence that acted as the primary cause for the explosion. But for Ralph Hanke placing the hot water hose in the gas tank, the fumes would not have ignited and the explosion would not have happened. The Supreme court was right in realizing that regardless of the presence of minor design flaws, Resurifce should not be punished for Hanke’s error. Secondly the Zamboni was designed in a way to one could easily distinguish the two tanks.
Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 243. What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory in finding the defendant liable (Herron, 2011). Under the strict product liability theory, K-Mart (seller) would be held liable for defects in their products even if those defects were not introduced by them; also for failing to discover them during production (Herron, 2011).
The offence of murder occurs when a person of a sound mind unlawfully kills a human being, under the Queen’s peace with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The issues in this scenario are as follows; whether what Albert heard is admissible as hearsay, whether John’s inconsistent statements are admissible .and whether the death statements of Jane and Patrick are admissible The first issue is whether what Albert heard is admissible as hearsay. In order for Albert’s experience to be admissible in court, he will have to give a statement as a witness to the police.
During the 18th century, Hammurabi conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the Kingdom of Babylon. After he conquered those lands, he wrote set of laws to bound every other citizen in his territory under that law where no other person would be under-represented. He wrote that code to bring righteousness to the land and planned to bring the well-being of the oppressed. It is even mentioned that Hammurabi feared gods and wrote that code to please them. However, Hammurabi Law Code dealt with different aspects of society ranging from the health care system to family life, from criminal justice to commercialization of businesses and rights of women; law structures were clarified and well designed.
No matter how hard one tries, a person cannot debate a proven fact. Often times, the use of facts in literature can create a strong, compelling argument. In “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, the author uses statistics, logic, and facts to build his argument supporting Singapore’s justice system that focuses on “a sense of personal responsibility” (Reyes 182). Unlike “Rough Justice,” the editorial, “Time to Assert American Values,” lacks logic but still attempts to convince readers of going against Singapore’s caning policy. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” is the most relevant and sufficient argument because of the author’s use rhetorical appeals and
The unresolved questions that attend the exclusionary rule can serve as catalysts of law that could foster harmonious relations among federal and state governments in their common responsibility of balancing individual freedom against governmental regulation and restraint.” In addition, in her Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article, Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection, Professor Heather A. Jackson states, “In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution mandated the exclusionary rule as a remedy of a Fourth Amendment violation in state proceedings. The Mapp Court examined the foundation of the precedent of Wolf, which came to the opposite conclusion, and ultimately
Honesty is the most important constituent during job interview; most of the interviews appreciate this candor. Most of the nursing interviews focus on asking certain scenarios that appear easy on the surface; at the same time, it requires close attention to the true meaning of it (Farley, 2016). John should listen carefully and critically think about “what to do” scenario. For instance, asking about cultural beliefs might seem straightforward, however the answer will imply Johns own views of cultural groups, customs, values, and beliefs without being judgmental (Farley, 2016). Taking the time to understand the question and ask clarification, if unclear, will help John to meet the expected criteria.
A. BWO will likely be able to prove that Chigurh was terminated for a legitimate business reason either because he held a management position or for the financial factors associated with fulfilling the agreement with Wells. An employer may terminate an employee for good cause under the WDEA. § 39-2-904(b). Good cause is defined as “reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer’s operation, or other legitimate business reason.” § 39-2-903(5).
The case People v. Smith was finally decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The case involved the defendant Ricky Franklin Smith whom pled guilty to breaking and entering and of being a habitual offender, fourth offense (People v Smith, 1991). The judge sentenced Smith to 6 to 30 years imprisonment for the Habitual Offender charge. Ricky Franklin Smith after sentencing requested to be resentenced because his juvenile record, which had been expunged, was considered by the judge for sentencing. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the sentencing; however, when the case went to the Supreme Court of Michigan, they reversed the decision because the sentencing should not have been based on the defendant’s prior expunged juvenile record.