FACTS In December of 1990, Gerry DiNardo was hired as the head football coach by and for Vanderbilt University under a five-year contract. Under this contract, “liquidated damage provisions” were outlined for both parties, with section 8 of the employment contract specifically detailing the liquidated damages he should owe to the plaintiff/appellee should he terminate his five-year contract with Vanderbilt and be “employed or performing services for a person or institution other than the University” within the five-year term of the aforementioned contract. In August of 1994, the Athletic Director for the University, Paul Hoolahan, offered the defendant/appellant a two-year extension of the contract. An addendum was drawn up by Vanderbilt’s Deputy General Counsel that would extend
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
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.
Krabappel wanted to be in contact with her lawyer, she was unable to get his attention and thus was unable to be consult regarding the case and be reasonably informed about the status of the matter. Ms. Krabappel did have contact with one member of Mr. Simpson’s Firm, Mr. Smithers, but since Smithers is a paralegal he is unable to consult Ms. Krabappel regarding legal matters. Further without consulting with his client, Mr. Simpson filed a Complaint against SBE on her behalf, which is another violation of Rule 1.4: Communication. As a lawyer is required to “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” Since Mr. Simpson did not communicate with his client before filing, Ms. Krabappel’s matter was not explained to her and she was not given the opportunity to make an informed decision for herself before a Complaint was filed on her behalf.
In 2013, the Supreme Court case Moncrieffe v. Holder refuses a Board of Immigration Appeals to removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident based on a long term criminal conviction related to sole possession of small amounts of marijuana. The case finally made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which is considered a rather technical question of the interpretation of the U.S Immigration laws. Local police departments have long been accused of profiling Hispanic, African-Americans, and other minorities of race in law enforcement activities, including run of the mill traffic stop. Critics fear that immigration enforcement by state and local authorities will lead to increase of racism. Many Americans have shown concerns with the implementation of racist discrimination of the U.S immigration laws by state police agencies and local authorities.
Case Study 1: Ethics in Action the PATCO Strike Giovanni Tutiven West Georgia Tech Labor Management Relations – 41163 Instructor: Christy Russell 27/01/2018 The case of the PATCO strike revolves around air traffic controllers whom belong to an organization called (PATCO) which stands for Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. They play a very important role since they control the traffic of planes that flow in and out which can be risky since the slightest error can make a plane crash which puts lives at risk. So, there is already much stress that comes with the position of being a traffic controller.
Rohith Rao Professor Kowal Legal Assignment # 1 2/13/15 Gonzalez v. Raich Synopsis and Analysis Introduction Gonzalez v. Raich was a major case that set a precedent for the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act as well as its federal jurisdiction. The defendants, Raich and Monson both suffer conditions that have granted them prescriptions for medical marijuana in the State of California. Raich purchases this marijuana from a grower and Monson grows her own plants. After examining the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the court ruled that they can be federally prosecuted under the Commerce Clause as their actions can have a potential economic consequences. The majority of the court ruled on this favoring, however there are also
Supreme Court, in Burstyn v. Wilson, declared that the right of Americans to communicate, and receive ideas must be given and the states and cities were given fair warning that the era of total state interest was over. The majority of the Court did not follow Justice Frankfurter and simply declare the New York law void for vagueness. Instead they declared that movies were entitled to free speech protection. And even though this might not mean the application of the identical rules that govern other media of communication, it meant some protection, yet to be defined
Dear "Papery Newspaper," After I read your recent article, "Haywood Patterson Trial Strikes Again!" by Sophia Rowe, I felt the need to clarify what the article did not say. The public is ignorant to the significant problems that are being brought into our court every day and innocent lives are paying the price. This article specifically makes me angry and passionate for change. Many of you know about Judge Horton. He is a very fair and unbiased person, who has spoken many words of wisdom.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under Arizona and First Amendment law, did the trial court correctly find that a comedian’s hateful rhetoric constituted fighting words and was thus not protected speech when at a comedy show he: (1) made derogatory references in regards to a politician’s heritage; (2) called for the killing of the politician’s family; (3) mentioned the politician’s name; and (4) repeated his language by posting on the politician’s social media pages? 2. Did the trial court correctly find that the comedian’s speech was a “true threat” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment when he: (1) called for the beating of a politician; (2) lit a campaign poster on fire depicting the politician; and (3) caused the severe emotional distress of
Introduction: U.S - Canadian magazine Dispute happen as a result of law laid down by Canadian government to other foreign magazine such as America, Canadian government introduce new tax to all foreign magazine in order to protect the country domestic magazine as well as not losing respect for their culture. The law stated that new tax will be pay on all advertising revenue or the magazine will have to publish a magazine that will compose of least 80% of Canadian context but other foreign consider the law to be discriminating practice. However, in 1995, the Canadian government added another tax that would have to be paid unless the split-run magazine had at least 80% Canadian content because they sees some foreign magazine companies trying to avoid paying tax. In
To what extent do you think the U.S.-Canadian magazine dispute was motivated by genuine desires to protect Canadian culture? I imagine that initially the dispute was motivated by Canadian nationalism and eventually evolved into a standalone conflict. It began fueled “by a desire to promote Canadian cultural uniqueness in magazine production had therefore escalated to the brink of inciting a wide-ranging trade war” (The Levin Institute, n.d.). Canadian attempts to preserve their national identity through their magazine production prompted American magazine producers to circumvent the prohibitory measures imposed on foreign magazines. This in turn inspired the Canadian government to establish further sanctions and the entire dispute
To what extent do you think the U.S.-Canadian magazine dispute was motivated by genuine desires to protect Canadian culture? I think that to some extent there was a true concern with Canadian culture but I would say that the reason for the dispute was also economic. The American culture and its products are spread over Canada in all areas an not only in the magazines business. If this was a 100% culture concern, it would have affected more sectors of the economy and not only magazines.
This movie portrays attorneys and litigation process in a negative light. Although Jan Schlichtmann initially rejects the case, he reconsiders his decision after realizing that he is dealing with defendants with “fat wallets”. Anne Anderson and her neighbors only wanted an apology from the corporations and were not interested to obtain financial gains. Having said this, many attorneys rejected the case as they were not seeing any financial settlement. In the movie, Jan states, “a lawyer who shares his client’s pain does his client such a grave disservice, he should have his license to practice law taken away.”
