Marvin Katko v. Edward Briney & Bertha L. Briney, No. 54169. Feb. 9.1971 Procedure Plaintiff Katko filed an action in Mahaska District Court against Defendants Briney. Plaintiff in an action resulting from injuries suffered by trespassing when he was triggered a spring gun set up in an uninhabited house by defendants. After the District Court gave judgment for plaintiff for both actual and punitive damages, and defendants appealed.
Another inmate, Ernest Ray Willis, had a case that was freakishly similar to Willingham’s. In 1987, Willis had been convicted of setting a fire, in West Texas, that killed two women. Willis told investigators that he had been sleeping on a friend’s living-room couch and woke up to a house full of smoke. He said that he tried to rouse one of the women, who was sleeping in another room, but the flames and smoke drove him back, and he ran out the front door before the house exploded with flames. Witnesses maintained that Willis had acted suspiciously; he moved his car out of the yard, and didn’t show “any emotion,” as one volunteer firefighter put it.
They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought money damages for personal injuries, wrongful death and birth defects and injunctive relief for environmental contamination and disgorgement of profits. However, the District Court dismissed these claims in 2005. The, the plaintiffs
Litigant Henry Xavier Kennedy claims the liable decision in a jury trial for the wrongdoing of first degree fire related crime in the September 23, 1981 flame which leveled his log lodge. He guarantees that the jury charges, or now and again called directions to the jury by the judge, were mistaken in a few distinct ways and that there was insufficient proof to convict him of the charge. Kennedy 's building business was moderate, and he had two home loans on the lodge which was the building being referred to. He had restored a protection approach on the building for $40,000 days prior. Kennedy had told agents that he had a strong plausible excuse from 12:00 midnight until 4:00 a.m. which would dispose of him from any wrongdoing since he was
Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death for killing his girls, by setting the house on fire purposely in Corsicana, Texas. The arson inspector’s findings were that the house was purposely set on fire due to lab tests and burn patterns. Willingham was put to death at the Texas State Penitentiary in February 2009. The Texas Forensic Science Commission determined that the local and state arson investigators used “flawed science” when the fire was labeled as arson. Experts stated that the findings were careless (Ryan 261-313).
In order for job/position of the defendant in relation to plaintiff to be established the defendant must hold a job or position that is in relation to the plaintiff in order for a legal obligation to be established. In this case the defendants Matthew Hartley was operating a motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, operating a vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a crash and killed the plaintiff, Mollie Mahowald throwing her 20 or 30 feet in the air. Therefore, the defendant does not owe the plaintiff a legal obligations based off the job/position relationship.
In the movie, A Civil Action, the plaintiff’s case began when a group of various parents and families believed that the health related issues and deaths in their city of Woburn was the result of contaminated water. Although the attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, was reluctant to take the case at first because they didn’t have plausible cause, he realized that 2 corporations sat at the border of the river. Mr. Schlichtmann and his firm thus took the case and file a major lawsuit which stated that the the two corporations, Grace and Beatrice, caused wrongful deaths due to the dumping of hazardous waste. The plaintiff side of this case then begins to collect scientific evidence and witness statements in order to prove that both Grace and Beatrice were
Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is because Pat was caught red handed in the morgue without permission. I would want to pursue the maximum of a Class C misdemeanor with jail time of thirty days and a $500 fine. That is because it is an offense committed at night and would be something in exchange for reducing the sentencing of burglary. The one concern that I have with the dismal of the Burglary charge, in pursuit of Criminal Trespass, would be the disapproval of the Chief Prosecuting Attorney. Would the Chief Attorney be against this decision due to the reduction in time for possible sentencing?
This time also they sell all their junk to the third party. This time the breach was occurred due to the improper disposal of the hardware and the negligence of the IT employee. With this second breach of the HIPAA violation the HHS imposed $50k fine on the clinic and the hospital administration fired the employee and HHS imposed a fine of $10k on the
From what this case turns out to be, as determined by the facts surrounding it, if our organization was set up such that our supervisors have the power to fire employees under their supervision, the company could have potentially found its entangled in a Sarbanes-Oxley lawsuit. There is no doubt that had this morally upright secretary been fired for standing her ground in the face of our rogue supervisor 's demand for her to cook the books the company could have been in violation not only for attempting to file a fraudulent expense account but for taking retaliatory action against her for refusing to do such. On the other hand had the secretary connived with her boss, the supervisor and prepared the false expense report, the company 's reputation could have again been in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A federal law that prohibits publicly traded companies such as ours, in engaging in fraudulence accounting and financial practices. Such a scenario could have ruined the corporation 's reputation and expose it to an enormous fine from the Federal Trade Commission.
Patrice Seibert was indicted of arson in relative to a fire that caused a casualty. Seibert’s son suffered from cerebral palsy, and resulting in his death (while sleeping) she dreaded charges of negligence. Missouri police confirmed her participation in scorching the family’s mobile home, thus hiding the cause of her son’s death, and the passing of another mentally-ill young man living with the family. Police then interrogated Seibert depriving her Miranda warning, and she admitted both her participation in arson and purpose to kill the young man during the fire. Following a break, the police then issued the appropriate Miranda warnings to Seibert, and she once more confessed her contribution in arson and murder.
Why is the federal government sentencing the rancher Steve and Dwight twice on an arson charges? The Hammond’s residing from Oregon, they owned a ranch near to a government property. On 2001 Steve and Dwight started a fire on a government property and burn approximately hundreds of acres. The Hammond’s were initially charges for their first offense.
Problem 143 The issue is whether Johnson was discharged by the alteration of the check and what reply should the bank’s attorney make. UCC §§3-115, 3-407, 3-406, and 4-401(d), addressed the alteration of instruments, whether an instrument is properly payable, the issue of discharge, negligence of an altered instrument and the good faith rule. It also addressed which party is liable when an instrument is altered and when is the bank is responsible to re-credit an account. Specifically, for this issue, I will use UCC §4-401 (d): A bank that in good faith makes payment to a holder may charge the indicated account of its customer according to: (1) the original terms of the altered item; or (2) the terms of the completed item, even though the bank knows the item has been completed un- less the bank has notice that the completion was improper.