Bias v. Advantage International Upon the completion of Len Bias’s collegiate basketball career at the University of Maryland, Bias on April 7, 1986, reached an agreement with Advantage International who consented to counsel and maintain his affairs. The Advantage representative who was assigned to his case was A. Lee Fentress. The Boston Celtics picked Bias on June 17, 1986, in the first round of the National Basketball Association draft. Then, two days later on the morning of June 19, 1986, unfortunately Bias died of a cocaine overdose.
The violation of statutory provisions by a landlord can qualify as a proximate cause for injuries to tenants in the case the surrounding environment was insecure and there was clear knowledge of intrusions into the given residential area. Ten Associates v. McCutchen Fla. App., 398 So.2d 860 (Fla.App. Ct. 1981). The landlord was legally obligated to positively respond to the plight of the tenants as their lease agreement put him responsible for any required repairs within the common area. The tenants, including Parker, had made numerous attempts to inform him of increased frequency of intrusion due to a broken deadbolt lock that he was mandated, according to the provisions of the statute, to promptly repair.
Business 140 Take Home Examination Randy and Laura, a newly engaged couple, had taken a trip to the local Warehouse in preparation for a trip they have been both planning. Unfortunately while Laura was searching for the perfect ski jacket, a display of cooking stoves fell from the above sky shelves. Laura is not the first to have been injured, or killed by department store sky shelves. However, not only was she a victim of corporate greed, and there lack of safety, but also a victim of theft. Laura was pictured walking into the Warehouse with a diamond necklace, and a ruby and diamond ring which was never brought back to her possession after the incident.
The regulation states, an employee must be restored to a position that is geographically proximate to their previous position. Furthermore, it is an interference of an employee’s right, to which he or she is entitled under FMLA, by failing to restore him or her to an equivalent position upon return to work. 29 C.F.R. § 825.215. In the case of McFadden v. Seagoville State Bank, the employee’s previous job before taking FMLA leave required a seven mile commute one way, which takes ten minutes to drive.
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.
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
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.
Katz v. United States, is a United States Supreme Court case discussing about "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search". Charles Katz lived in Los Angeles and in 1960’s he was the leading basketball handicappers in the country. Charles Katz used a public telephone in Los Angeles, California to place illegal gambling bets with gamblers in Miami and Boston. The FBI tapped the specific phone by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth used by Mr. Katz and they were able to listen about the Katz illegal bets.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Supreme Court continually adjusts its interpretation of the framer’s words, using purposefully vague definitions of religion and religiosity as the basis for their rulings on the application of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Each court employs their own understanding of religion to every case, rendering constitutional judgments that are often more based on an individual Justice’s interpretation of what can be considered religious than on a strict adherence to judicial precedent or the application of constitutional
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.
BOEHM v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, 929 F.2d 482 (1991) Argued and Submitted: Feb 5, 1991 Decided: March 27, 1991 “Under California Law an employee who has been wrongfully discharge has a duty to mitigate damages through reasonable efforts to achieve other employment” (defendant has the burden to prove failure of mitigation. available to the plaintiff was comparable or substantially similar to the employment that the plaintiff was wrongfully deprived by the defendant Identify the Case: The case Boehm v. American Broadcasting Company can be found in volume 929 of the Supreme Court Supplement second series, on page 482. The case was argued February 5, 1991 and decided on March 27, 1991. Identify the Court (s): Frank Boehm
Deals Co. v. Mainland Motors Corp., 40 Mich. Application. 270, 198 N.W.2d 757 (1972) (defendant corporation which allegedly did not honor agreement had burden of raising statute of frauds
-- US foreclosed began to rise; Companies such as GM and chrysler faced bankruptcy at this time. Part Four of this documentary talks about Accountability. Who is supposed to be held accountable for
Signature Student Number Date Table of Content: Introduction 4 The Problem 5 The Court Case: 6 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction In the case Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. the United States were two courts playing the role: United States Court of International Trade and United States Court of America where plaintiff and defendant respectively were The Nissan Motor Mfg.
Corporation Liability Third, as an employer, CS had a legal duty to supervise its employees and is responsible for the acts performed within the scope of employment. This is known as the doctrine of respondeat superior according to Nowak (1999). When employees participate in torturous or criminal activity, the company is primarily responsible from these illegal acts and can be held legally accountable for the employee's wrongdoing unless it can be proven that the employee acted clearly out of the scope of his/her job. According to Nowak (1999), "the doctrine of negligent retention forces employers to analyze their potential liability when they allow the Internet into their businesses. This doctrine requires employers to remedy improper activity
