Case Study: Nestle V. South Carolina

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.

Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.

Phillips VS. Martin Marietta This case is about a denied employment because of her sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1966 Martin Marietta Corp., informed Ida Phillips that it was not accepting job applications from women with preschool-age children, but they were employing men with preschool-age children.

An inmate’s most important right is to have access to the courts and without that right they “have neither a forum in which to question the conditions and constitutionality of their confinement, nor an arena in which to seek vindication of other alleged rights violations” (Hinckley, 1987, p. 19). So, the foundation of other prisoners’ rights are based this right of access (Hinckley, 1987). Bounds v Smith is a very good example of where inmate fought to ensure this assess. It all began in North Carolina where inmates filed three actions alleging their 14th Amendment right were violated because of denial of access of legal help and research (Bounds v. Smith, 1977).

Sinthasomphone vs Milwaukee U.S. 785 F. Supp 1343 (1992) Facts: A child (Sinthasomphome) was returned to the custody of his assailant by police officers after being found naked and beaten on the streets after his escape. The child was later killed by this assailant. Parents of the child filed a civil rights action against the police officers and the city of Milwaukee for discrimination and failure to provide equal protection for their son. Survivors of other victims of his assailant also filed civil rights actions.

The Fourth Amendment draws a line at the entrance of a home. In order for an officer to enter into a home, they must first obtain a warrant. While this is the easiest way to enter into a home, there are exceptions to the necessity of a warrant. An officer does not need a warrant when there is consent, it involves a vehicle, at incident to arrest, containers, or it is an emergency. This case is considered an emergency.

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.

The efforts Edina Broward made to research about her stolen painting will probably considered as diligent efforts which prevent statute of limitation from starting to run. Ms.Broward tried to find her stolen painting by many means. First of all, The police was notified by her as well as a private investigator was hired to help to find the stolen painting. Similar to Everett v. Rogers, where the owner of stolen painting informed the police and was going to hire private investigator.

In U.S. v. Jones, Antoine Jones owned a popular nightclub in the District of Columbia. As the police department and FBI had reasonable suspicion to believe that cocaine trafficking was taking place in the club, law enforcement enabled strict surveillance. The strict surveillance consisted of cameras around the nightclub, officers obtained a warrant to implement device to register phone numbers of anyone calling Jones or calls Jones made and installed a wiretapping device. In addition, the officers installed a GPS tracking device in Jones vehicle, to install this device the officers had to obtained a warrant that allowed the GPS to be installed for ten days in the District of Columbia. However, as the car traveled to Maryland the officers changed

I. QUESTION PRESENTED What is the impact of Mr. Roberts and Ms. Turley holding their new home as joint tenants in a community property state? II. SHORT ANSWER By opting to hold the new home as joint tenants in a community property state, the couple will realize the higher level of creditor protection afforded by a joint tenancy but will lose the significant tax benefits afforded under the community property tax regime.

The Supreme Court stated, in Mathews v. Eldridge, that the right to be heard in a meaningful way “before being condemned to suffer a grievous loss” is a basic principle of our society. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976) (citing Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951)). However, they proceeded to counter this by saying that due process was flexible and its procedures should be tailored to the particular situation. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319; 333 (1976).

Last summer, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a lawsuit challenging an acquisition by a controlling shareholder seeking monetary damages against corporate fiduciaries must plead a non-exculpated claim against disinterested, independent directors to survive a motion to dismiss. The Court’s decision resolved two separate consolidated appeals by directors of Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. and Zhongpin, Inc. In each case, the Delaware Chancery Court denied the independent directors' motions to dismiss, analyzing that if the underlying transaction is subject to the “entire fairness” standard of review, all of the directors must remain defendants until the end of the litigation, regardless of any exculpatory language contained in the companies’ charter provisions.. In reversing on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held: