Wonder Widgets The first issue Wonder Widgets faces is their liability to CelTel for the problem widgets. Depending on the cause of the problems, Wonder Widgets may be liable for damages. However, the sales contract contained a merger clause which limited wonder Widget’s liability. A merger clause, when included in a contract, cause the contract to become the complete agreement of the parties (Mallor 471). This means that any terms that were discussed prior to the contract, that are not included in writing, do not apply.
The decision of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is overruled, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is affirmed. Concurrences/Dissents Justice Sutherland dissented: the question of this case should not have received fresh consideration because the “economic conditions have changed,” the meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events. The only way to remedy a situation where the Constitution stands in the way of legislation is to amend the Constitution not to use the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation. Judges are constrained by the nature of their office and the Court must act as one unit. Analysis This case resulted in an explicit rejection of economic substantive due process.
Mrs. Ferjo’s application against the tribunal stated that she believed that the tribunal discriminated against her at the previous hearing when they denied her legal representation. Mrs. Ferjo checked off sexual discrimination on the application form but could not provide any factual evidence that she faced discrimination on those grounds. Mrs. Ferjo was therefore unable to establish prima facie case.  The tribunal argued the doctrine of judicial immunity prevented legal proceedings against judicial members based on their actions as an adjudicator or decision maker. This is so that judicial members can make decisions without fear of consequences.
The respondent then sought collateral relief in the state court on numerous grounds, specifically among them was his assertion that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The respondent challenged his counsel’s assistance in six respects. He claimed that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, failed to request a psychiatric report, failed to investigate and present character witnesses, failed to seek a pre-sentence investigation report, failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and failed to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. The respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court seeking relief on numerous grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors.
They do not believe him because his wife did not validate his words. 6. How is Elizabeth’s testimony used against Proctor? Why is this an unfair test of Elizabeth’s word against John’s? Elizabeth was called into trial and she denies Proctor’s lechery with Abigail, which is opposite of what Proctor said.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The disputing factors are if Hampton was under the control of the Appellees at the time of the collision and whether he was within the authorized time and space limits of his employment. The Appellees argued that they could not exercise control over Hampton as he was off duty between delivery runs, therefore, he was not under the scope of his employment during that time of the accident. The Appellant contended that under the authorization of his employer, Hampton was merely on a short refreshment
A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Whether Mother Should Have Been Held In Contempt. Father avers that the circuit court erred in failing to hold Mother in contempt. Indeed, Father asserts that “[Mother’s] conduct warranted a finding of contempt, and it was erroneous for the trial court to rule otherwise.” The scope of our review of the trial court’s failure to find Father in contempt is as follows: (a) Scope of review. –Any person may appeal
Fortas argued Gideon 's case by using wether Betts V. Brady should be reconsidered. The Betts V. Brady case had ruled that (akin to Gideon’s) that the fourteenth amendment requires states to appoint counsel only under special circumstances. It has been an unpopular standard and was constantly criticized but nevertheless was in effect. In only two short months, the verdict for Gideon 's case had been decided, Betts V. Brady was found unconstitutional, as it violated the sixth amendment 's right to a fair and speedy trial and that looking at the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees due process of law, the court was wrong to not have appointed Gideon a lawyer. The court then ruled that Gideon should be given a retrial, this time with a court appointed
Eventually, the court declared that Roth was guilty. Roth was defeated in a 6 - 3 vote. The court announced that the obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment. “The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance. "(“Roth”).The court said the first Amendment was not planned to protect statements like Roth’s.
With this, Aetna is claiming that it is not financially feasible to continue operating in the same manner. The show then goes on to disclose the information that was obtained by the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post found a letter the CEO wrote to the Justice department in the prior year and tells them Aetna’s plans to reduce coverage should the merger with Humana they are seeking approval for fail.