when Sue Sylvester learned that Mr. shuester had killed Titan she was very upset at losing her companion Ms. Sylvester has come to our office to ask if she can sue Mr. Schuester over the death of her beloved Titan I am considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Please review the attached case, Ammon v. Welty, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2002), assume it states the current law on the topic, and write an analysis of whether Mr. Schuester’s conduct meets the “intent” element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
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.
Case: George Perrot Victim:78-year-old woman who lived in Springfield Suspects: George Perrot George Perrot spent almost 30 years in prison thanks to a single hair. It was discovered by an FBI agent on the bedsheet of a 78 year old woman who had been raped by a burglar in her home in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1985. George Perrot was put on trial because of the hair, there was no physical evidence of semen and no blood, so the hair was the only way of tying him to this case. The FBI agent Wayne Oakes is an expert in hair and textile fibers. The FBI agent referred to the medulla, the cortex and the cuticle of hair to help with identifying the hair to George Perrot.
Herbert Landry was convicted of first-degree aggravated arson on August 16th, 2006 in Provo, Utah. Based on people who testified against him as well as the dog handler, Landry was initially found guilty of aggravated arson. Prior to conviction, Landry had been displaced from his home in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. Since the hurricane, Landry then moved to Shadow Woods Apartment complex; where the fire was taken place. Landry sent his family to Texas while he lived in Utah.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, in 1969, problems arose when Brandenburg, a leader of a Klu Klux Klan, held a KKK meeting in an Ohio farm. In the convention Brandenburg was filmed as he complained about the United States suppressing the white race. For the most part the film was inaudible but it was certain that Brandenburg had stated some demeaning opinions on African Americans and Jews. In the assembly some Klu Klux Klan members were holding weapons. Though Brandenburg was not, he made it clear that violence would not take place unless it was necessary.
Gottwald vs. Sebert was a court case that has to deal with the breaking of a contract. The defendant, Kesha Rose Sebert, is a songwriter as well as a recording artist. The plaintiff, Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald, is a music producer who was suing Sebert and her mother for breach of contract and defamation. The initial contract, which began in 2005, between Sebert and Gottwald stated that Sebert had to provide six albums for Kemosabe/Kasz Money, Inc., a music label. Sebert’s mother, however, felt that the two of them were not being paid fairly.
Procedural History: Goetz, defendant, was indicted by a Grand Jury on January 25 1985, for criminal possession of a weapon in third degree, possession the gun during the shooting, two counts for fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon, and possession of two other weapons. The Grand Jury also indicted him for attempt to the following, murder, reckless endangerment, and assault. He was dismissed for the charges of attempted murder and those that came from the shooting. On March 27, 1985, a second Grand Jury indicted the defendant for four charges for attempted murder, four charges of assault in first degree, one for reckless endangerment, and one for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree on the grounds that new evidence became
Through years of gender inequality throughout the nation, one of the most important causes for women was when they received the right to vote, as it allowed them to have a voice within the country. While looking throughout the fight for Women’s Suffrage, many would say that it ultimately ended on August 26, 1920- when the 19th Amendment was officially ratified. Although this seems accurate, many others would say that the fight ended when the Supreme Court 's ruling ultimately established the Nineteenth Amendment. This is best shown by the ratification of the 19th amendment, Leser v. Garnett, and the overall process to reach the final ruling during the case.
Introduction: You are sitting at your desk, taking notes from a teacher, and learning about the Revolutionary war. All of a sudden, you are banned from school and ripped from your studies, all because you believed in Gandhi’s non-violent movements. This same case happened to the Tinker students in Des Moines, Iowa. In the year 1965, the time of the Vietnam war, a group of students came together and wore black armbands with a white peace sign embeded on the side. These armbands were banned by the principals and the school board, with the punishment of suspension until the student was willing to take the armband off.
There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.
Establishing political rights for citizens in the American colonies was sometimes a rocky process. In 1735, John Peter Zenger helped establish the right of freedom of the press. Zenger was a German immigrant, who went to work for a newspaper called; The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger and the Newspaper attacked corrupt officials in New York, by printing articles that told the truth about the actions of the officials. Zenger’s articles printed in the newspaper, but soldiers were ordered to burn the newspaper in the public square.
Assignment 6: Tinker v. Des Moines Ana M. Greenwood University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Tinker v. Des Moines In December 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was a high school student in Des Moines, Iowa. During that time, a group of adults and students gathered to declare their opposition to the conflicts in Vietnam. To protest, the group agreed to wear black armbands during the Christmas break (Iannacci, 2017). Tinker and a group of students decided to take this protest and armbands to school to school as well.
The Book called the Odyssey is centered around the hero Odysseus. The part about this story that makes it hard to talk about is the debate around whether Odysseus is a hero or not. Many Literary scholars of The Odyssey by Homer have argued that Odysseus is not a hero, closer examination shows that he clearly was a hero because he led them to victory in the Trojan War, he turned his men back into actual men, and he even went to the underworld where few to none have escaped freely. The reason this is debated a lot is because of the choices he made during the war and the journey back home. To understand why he was a hero the story must be known.
Judges are also given the power to decide/figure out the realness/respect/truth
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
