Funny Face Case Study 1: Funny Face

Competency to Stand Trial Assignment The major standard that is used in the US to decide the competency of a person to stand trial is the Dusky Standard, which was decided during the case of Dusky v. United States. The Dusky Standard sets forth two criteria that have to be met in order for a person to be competent to stand trial. These criteria are that the individual has both rational and factual understanding of the court proceedings and that the individual is able to assist their attorney with their defence (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). In the case of Mr. Smith his attorney requests a competency to stand trial hearing due to Mr. Smith 's history of mental health issues and his inability to work with his attorney. Mr. Smith has a history

The rhetorical analysis of the court document “Kinkel vs The State of Oregon”. The document was written to explain the arguments of both sides of the court and to justify the decision made by the court and the judge through facts and rhetorical accounts of events that transpired. The judge clearly uses Ethos, Logos, and Pathos within the analysis which is used to his advantage. There are many audiences involved in the court and trial. There is the defendants and the victim’s family members present.

The district court decided the respondent’s motion for immediate judgment on all of the plaintiff’s philosophies; the United States Courts of Appeal on behalf of the Second Circuit confirmed the courts judgment. For the courts to conclude whether or not a company is simply an alter ego of the shareholders, that court must ponder numerous effects to comprise the nonexistence of a company bureaucracies, individual use of commingling of company assets, insufficient capitalization, statutorily executed shareholder legal responsibility, continuance of scheme by use of a company to sanction pre corporate agreements (Maffei, 2011). If the courts existed to section the shroud of a company for individual use in addition to commingling the company’s funds, the courts has to decide if the company financial dealings are actuality directed over the company’s financial records and not done over shareholders and private accounts. All companies should require separate financial records and separate income tax

Ewick and Silbey offer numerous reasons as to why “before the law” and “with the law” puts a perspective on how Americans have an opinion about lawyers. Through our culture’s portrayals of law through movies, media, TV, etc., we have this idea that lawyers happen to be either good or bad when in fact they are heroes. “Legally Blonde” and “Liar Liar” both display the heroic lawyer and provide us with how their demeanor affects the way Americans interpret beliefs of the law. From the past to present, it is difficult for Americans to consider lawyers as heroes when our culture exaggerates them as being dramatic and immoral. Lawyers should be considered heroes as they provide us with the services, legal rights, and protection to fulfill peace

They are also responsible for issuing requested information or denying requests as well as being accountable for appeals of denied requests in federal courts. Agencies also list their FOIA contacts through the Justice Department though they maintain their own individual staff dedicated to FOIA requests. The Department of Justice administers the FOIA and their Office of Information Policy monitors agency activity to ensure compliance. To aid in this process, they provide summaries and access to information about court cases addressing the FOIA, run workshops for interested parties such as attorneys, post frequent updates on their ?OIPGuidance? website,[8] and publish a full-length ?DOJ Guide to the Freedom of Information Act,?

“Whether a government activity violates the Establishment Clause is “in large part a legal question to be answered on the basis of judicial interpretation of social facts. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 530 U.S 290, 315, S.Ct. 2266, 147 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2000). Every government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances.” Id.

This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the

This aspect renders eminent domain a major causal aspect of legislation controversies, as eminent domain presents a profound basis for litigation, which affects peace, harmony and unity of the United States as country. In this light, there is a dire need for the U.S government to abolish the practice of eminent domain, and to face the endeavor of finding new strategies, and new principles of acquiring private property in cases where the needs and wants of the public are deemed necessary (Gallagher & Elizabeth, p

When applying section 7 to activity on the Internet, courts should adopt a test that would protect the rights of employees to discuss problems that arise in the workplace while allowing the employer to respond to those problems and control its public image, when possible. In Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, the Supreme Court refused to “delineate precisely the boundaries of the ‘mutual aid or protection’ clause,” reasoning that the task should be one “for the Board to perform in the first instance as it considers the wide variety of cases that come before it.” In that case, the Court suggested that, “even when concerted activity comes within the scope of the mutual aid or protection clause, the forms such activity permissibly may take well depend on the object of the activity.” In this excerpt, the Court suggested that the Board could use its substantial discretion to find that the purpose of the Act would be best effectuated in certain circumstances by considering the form of the concerted activity. In social networking cases, such a test would balance the employer 's interest in putting forth a positive online image with the employee 's right to engage in concerted activity to

Let’s look at the legal options the chain store has the option to peruse. The chain store can take the defendant to court and request a quasi-contract to be proposed. A quasi-contract is where one of the parties may not have intended to enter into the contract but was perceived that way by another party, and a court comes in to put the contract into writing in the best interest of both parties (“Quasi-Contract,”n.d.). In this case, the store owner would get the product, and Mr. Stevens would have an extended deadline to produce the product. Another option would be to take them to court claiming promissory estoppel.