The second trial I attended was a personal injury civil jury trial with Judge Carrier. This was a rather interesting case of Jennifer Wolfe VS D & W LLC. Within this case, Jennifer Wolfe attended a bachelorette party eight years ago with her now sister-in-law, who was the maid of honor. The story started out with everyone meeting at a house and the maid of honor was mad that the designated person to bring alcohol, forgot to bring the alcohol. The alcohol drank at this house was whatever was there, which was a few beers and a box of wine. From here, a rented limo picked everyone up and took them to the first bar, where they did not stay long. Witnesses recounts them each having a round of shots and maybe a pitcher of beer. Eventually, the party ended up at a local karaoke bar called Bugsy Malone’s. When the party arrives, Jennifer and her sister-in-law immediately go get drinks. Not long after getting the drinks, a man invites Jennifer to dance with him on a stage. While on the stage, she ends up falling off and breaking her ankle very badly. She had to have pins put in her ankle, that later had to be removed, and will have to have another ankle fusion in …show more content…
The stage was built by a lead singer of a band who was going to play at Bugsy Malone’s. The builder had a full time job in construction and built cabinets. The stage was not very big, but it was about 12 inches high which was larger than the normal step height. The plaintiff argues, and brought in witnesses, that described Jennifer having maybe two drinks and just misjudging the stage when she was getting off. They believe it is the defendants fault because they did not have the stage built to code. The defendant argues the plaintiff was slightly intoxication and lost her balance causing her to fall off the stage. They pointed out she had got up on the stage with no problem and how they did have not have any previous accidents with this
Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So.3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) Appellant/Petitioner: Rafael Holland Appellee/Respondent: Cheney Bros., Inc. Facts: The claimant, Rafael Holland challenged the legal sufficiency of the Judge of Compensation (JCC) denying the request of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.
Jake Ruksakiati V-220 HW 3 Case one: Graham v. Connor (1989) Case two: Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) Graham v. Connor: Facts: Graham is a diabetic and asked one of his friends to take him to a convenience store so he could purchase juice to counteract an insulin reaction he had been experiencing. While in the store Graham noticed that the line to check out was extremely long and decided to leave the store. Graham left the store extremely fast, raising suspicion about his activity to police officer Connor.
In the case of Weeks v. United States on December 21, 1911 in Kansas City, Missouri Freemont Weeks was arrested at his job on suspicion of transporting lottery tickets through the mail, meanwhile officers were entering into his residence without his permission or a warrant. Weeks took this case to trail to petition for the return of his private possessions. If the court decides to not return his property he could be convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail which is illegal in Missouri. But this is a violation of his 4th Amendment rights if the court decides to use the evidence they was seized illegally.
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.
Terry v. Ohio was not much of a controversial case to many but I believe that John Terry had been wrongly accused and his right were protected by the 4th amendment that mentions unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968 detective Mcfadden had been observing 3 men that he believed were involved in robbing a bank. He proceeded to stop the men and pat them down (already violating the men's rights protected in the 4th amendment). Terry was one of the two men that was found with a concealed carry. The justices voted on the case 8-1 in the favor of the state of Ohio.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
She fits in all right at school, but she finds out that the insurance companies won 't pay for her bills so her parents have to fight in court. Her father is putting in long hours at work to pay the bills. Jessica gets fitted for a prosthesis and walks pretty well with it. Fiona and her coach tell her about a special running leg. Her team has decided to fundraise to get her one.
The court case I chose to outline is Payne v. Tennessee. This particular case deals with the use of victim impact statements in Capital court cases. The facts of this case began on June 27, 1987 when Pervis Tyrone Payne decided to visit his girlfriend, Bobbie Thomas, at her apartment, in Millington, Tennessee. Throughout the day Payne visited Thomas apartment in hopes of making contact with her, but each time no one was at the residence. On one particular visit, Payne decided to leave an overnight bag, containing his clothes, malt liquor and other personal items, in the hallway outside of Thomas’ apartment.
Undocumented children are given the right to school. In Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that education is a human right. (crossing the borders peer) In the year of 1982, this right was opened up to children without legal status in the United States. Denying these rights was deemed unconstitutional; education was opened up to illegal immigrant children.
Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.
Crown is arguing that Mr. Watkins exhibited signs of an intoxicated individual (e.g., uneven gait, an odor of alcohol, glassy and bloodshot eyes). However, Mr. Jones asserts that these signs were not present during the interaction with Mr. Watkins. Mr. Jones’ view of the Seventh Street was obstructed by the steel security bars and advertising, therefore it was impossible for Mr. Jones to see that Mr. Watkins had uneven gait when he approached the Cut-Rate Liquor store. In fact, during the Cross-Examination, Mr. Bier admitted and I cite “It is possible” that Mr. Jones did not see Mr. Watkins stumbling on his way to the store because of the aforementioned
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.
Luigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law December 2, 2015 Week 6 Case Study: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? R. Williams Construction Company petitions for review of a final order of the OSHRC for violations of the OSHA Act.
The overview of the case given stated that the party Kelly Kashman had crashed into a curb and when the police arrived at the scene they determined that had urinary incontinence she was driving under the influence of alcohol and other prescribed medications. Furthermore, the defense attorney claimed that Kelly Cashman went into a restaurant she habitually attends and in where she is close with the bartender. On that occasion, she attended the restaurant for a memorial service, while she was there, she asked the bartender for a Coca-Cola and when she received the cup and took a sip from it she looked at the bartender in astonishment since she realized that the drink had rum and Coca-Cola mixed. The defense attorney claims that Kelly Cashman told the bartender to give her a regular Coca-Cola after she realized it had rum, he also claims that the bartender replied by trying to persuade her to finish the drink, the bartender told Kelly Cashman “it’s medication, you will feel better”. Moreover, Kelly Cashman decided to finish the drink since she thought it would be okay since it was just one cup.
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.