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). What are the judge’s reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court?
The appellant essential accommodation claim went to trial but court excluded evidence regarding to disability. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However the issue should have been decided by jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The central issue in this case is Hershey’s obligation
This jurisdiction, by definition, is a court’s power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court (Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017). This jurisdiction applies to this case because the lawsuit brought by Mr. Donald Margolin was filed after conducting business over the internet where funds were exchanged for a product. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over Mr. Margolin and is required to provide a service of process to the defendants, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now Inc.
With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favour of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., closely held for-profit corporations are now exempted from a regulation its owners religiously object to. With a license to ignore anti-discrimination laws, said business entities, through their respective owners, now possess the capacity to impose their religious beliefs on employees and customers alike. But how does all this translate into the real world? In short, it translates into unprecedented discriminatory freedom protected under the law; should my religion for example stipulate that the races, or the sexes are unequal, I could legally enforce a white male only policy. Gay and lesbian couples, often not aligning with
The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The issue is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the favor of the defendant because the shaker table rotation rule at issue was an essential function of the employee’s job. For the reason that plaintiff could not carry out her essential function needed as a shaker table inspector job, the District Court articulate that appellant was not a qualified individual as per the ADA.
The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The issue is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the favor of the defendant because the
Corporate Manslaughter refers to the decisions undertaken by a company that went wrong either in regards to their execution or due to the existence of some inherent fault or loophole in the decision making and its subsequent execution, resulting in or causing death of a person or persons. A company exists only in the contemplation of the law and thus cannot put behind bars in lieu of punishment hence, what can be imposed on the company is not imprisonment and fine only Justice Lindley has described the jurisprudential essence of the term company as follows, “A company is an association of persons, these persons contribute money or money’s worth to a common stock” .The common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is called as
It seems that if an employer would have long ago entered into an agreement had it not been for the impasse as to check-off he is not attempting to frustrate agreement. And if the union is not a fledging one whose existence depends on a check-off provision, the employer certainly cannot be accused of attempting to undermine the union. Remedies for default in Check-Off Where an employer is found guilty of bad faith bargaining because he has refused check-off with the purpose of frustrating any agreement, he is guilty of refusing to bargain, an unfair labour practice under section 8 (a) (5). The employer who persists in refusing to grant the dues check-off, although agreeing to bargain on the matter further, is oftentimes still found guilty of an unfair labour practice by the Board. The District of Columbia Circuit upheld the right of the Board to order an employer to accept a check-off proposal in United Steelworkers (H.K.
So the court approved the approach held in (Abernethy v Mott. Hay & Anderson, 1974) where it was ruled that: “A reason for the dismissal is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of the beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of the dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence at any rate as against him, as to the real reason.” Relying on the verdict Mr. Jones dismissal was unfair as the genuine reasons were not given by the
This can be seen by the numerous cases in which judges have stood by this fact. For example, in the case of Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee and Anor  The judge at the time , Chang Min Tat FJ said “It is however necessary to reaffirm the doctrine of stare decisis which the Federal Court accepts unreservedly and which it expects the High Court and other inferior courts in a common law system such as ours, to follow similarly… Clearly the principle of stare decisis requires more than lip service” Also, in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd v Feyen Development Sdn Bhd , Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ acknowledged the doctrine as ‘a cornerstone of our system of jurispridence’ before ruling that in accordance with that doctrine, it is not open to the Court of Appeal to disregard a judgement of the Federal Court on the grounds that it was given pre incuriam. With this being said, it is absolutely clear that the doctrine of stare decisis applies in Malaysia. But one thing worth nothing is although the Malaysian practice is based on the English practice, it is not exactly the
In other words, each partner of the band is an agent of the other with the right and the ability to control the activities of each other; and the band profited from the wrong doing of Keith, therefore they are all liable under an agency theory. Likewise, under copy right law, Contributory liability for copyright infringement requires that the secondary infringer know or have reason to know of direct infringement. A &M Records Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Does it matter that Keith’s intent was only to conceal his soft- rock proclivities and not the infringement?
& 371. (1) Whether the evidence sufficient enough to support their conviction of unlawful conversion of property under Title 18 U.S.C. & 641 (2) Whether or not without a reasonable doubt, the court proved that the defendants knowingly and willingly violated Title 18 USC& 2314 and 18 USC & 371. (3) Did the court erred in not allowing the defendant’s tax expert voice his legal opinion and prejudicial under Fed.R. Evid.702, 704(a), and 403.
According to Find A Case, the Thomson v. Voldahl case is a case in which, “Plaintiff taxpayers seek judgment in favor of Winnebago County for special assessment funds paid by the county to defendants as partial payment on void contracts. Plaintiffs seek eventual repayment of such funds to them as the special assessment taxpayers. Trial court dismissed plaintiffs ' petition. We reverse and remand.” (FindACase, n.d.).
669, 680 (2015) (“In an appeal from a judgment entered on judicial review of a final agency decision, we look ‘through’ the decision of the circuit court to review the agency decision itself.”). Moreover, “Our review of the agency’s factual findings entails only an appraisal and evaluation of the agency’s fact finding and not an independent decision on the evidence. This
This meant that Congress had the ability to “consider disapproval bills” and therefore making the Presidents cancellation “null and void”. The second provision laid out ways for Congress to bring action if any persons are harmfully impacted by the Line Veto Act, and they are able to seek injunctive relief if any part of the act violates the Constitution. June 2, 1997, one day after the act was enacted, six members of congress sued Robert E. Rubin who was secretary of the treasury and Franklin D. Raines who was director of the Office of Management and Budget. The congress members sued on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional due to it expanding the