Case Name and Citation HAYDEN vs. UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 716 N.E.2d 603 (1999) Court of Appeals of Indiana Summary of the Key Facts in the Case On September 16, 1995 William Hayden and Letitia Hayden attended a football game that was played on the University of Notre Dame’s campus. William and Letitia were season ticket holders with the university that sat in their reserved seats, which were located in the south endzone behind the goalpost.
Also, there may be no written agreement between Bolton Engineering and Rocket Motor Corporation that states that they must follow the project labor agreement. There was only a pledge to do so, and possibly the person to pledged didn 't have the power to do that
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).
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
Is Watt justified in his recommending Ann's dismissal? Why or why not? Watt must allow Ann a procedural due process before dismissing her for her actions, "meaning that the state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Essex, 2012, p. 203). Watt must also assure that both procedural and substantive requirements are met before dismissing Ann.
Even though the circumstantial evidence implicated Brad, the forensic evidence presented was sufficient to implicate Knox. The testimony made by Mrs. Knox was admissible as the spousal privilege was broken. However, the defense representing Knox could argue based on the Fourth Circuit to dismiss the testimony against him. The Fourth Circuit holds that Mrs. Knox’s statement should be inadmissible and as such, violates the confrontation clause. The use of this testimony to implicate Knox violates the aspect of spousal privileges.
1. According to the case law of Illinois v Allen, the US supreme court held that “trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, and stubbornly defiant defendant must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. The court further observed that at least three constitutionally acceptable avenues exist for dealing with a defiant defendant, in the case of Ms. Roberts she was a very defiant defendant. The avenues are 1.
In regards to the Brent Small case, I personally believe that Mr. Smalls shouldn't be found guilty due to the lack of evidence. Although there was a witness who saw what happened, the evidence isn’t consistent with the case. The vehicle did match the description but the witness was unsure of the license plate and the damage to the vehicle isn’t significant to the crime committed. I don't believe that the evidence is strong enough to convict Mr. Smalls.
Fire Eagle Engine Co., 332 F. 3d 264, 271 (4th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (internal citations and some internal quotation marks omitted.) The defendant bears the burden of pleading and proof as to an affirmative defense. See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 90 (2008)(“Ordinarily, it is incumbent on the defendant to plead and prove [an affirmative] defense.” ; Moore, 527 F.3d at 725 (citing Jones, supra, 549 U.S. 199); McNeil v. Polk, 476 F.3d 206, 220 n.3 (4th Cir.
The reasoning in Walton being that the additional facts are not part of the “element” of the capital crime. Id at 649. A decade later we put a limit on the judge’s authority during sentencing in Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi set a new precedent that seemed to conflict with Walton.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
These factors made it to where the defendant had no leverage in the case and would undoubtedly be convicted
What is your opinion of this dynamic? Judge Gaul wants the defendants to accept responsibility for their
She represents herself making a plea that is as much about the judge and his outlook as it is about her, and her works
The defendant is not guilty, but somebody in this courtroom is" (Harper 203). This