The case study describes about the tragic incident of Dorothy J.Drury, who died from injuries sustained in a fall while living at an Assisted Living Concepts , Inc. Drury had signed a Residency Agreement when his mother moved into the home, though he was not then his mother’s guardian, conservator, personal representative, or trustee and he did not have power of attorney for her. Drury’s mother suffered from dementia, chronic confusion, and memory impairment. The Residency Agreement included an arbitration provision. Drury sued ALC for wrongful death, in ALC defense they moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion.
Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.
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.
Shadrack Babwiriza Case Brief Writing Assignment Martin. J Littlefield Criminal Law 10/27/15 Buffalo State College I. Dennys Rodrigues, Petitioner v. United States II. 135 S. Ct. 1609; 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 III.
In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”
The Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada case occurred between Trinity Western University and the Law Society of Upper Canada. To begin the appellant Trinity Western University (“TWU”) is a long established and well respected private university located in British Columbia. The school's mandate is anchored in an evangelical Christian philosophy. Which means that TWU’s education is to be taught with “a fundamental philosophy and viewpoint that is in accordance with the Christian tradition.” Accompanying the school's core Christian beliefs is their community covenant, The Community Covenant is a code of conduct which encompasses TWU’s Christian religious values.
In the present case, the relationship purportedly forming the basis for the constructive fraud claim was formed in a professional setting and is
Overview of Clements v. State The case of Clements v. State is an example of how the legal framework of stalking laws in Texas should be interpreted and the effectiveness of this law to ensure justice for the victims. The case depicts how the law should operate despite certain vagueness in aspects of the First Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas to uphold the conviction while disagreeing with some conclusions arrived at by the trial court proves that stalkers will not be allowed to slide through cracks in the legal system. The case, based on a sequence of events where the complainant, Jennifer Clements, was subject to psychological trauma accompanied by an imminent physical threat to her from Nathan Clement, her estranged husband, is a forthright condition of stalking which complies with the Statues of
1927 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell The case of Buck v. Bell was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927. It involved a young woman, Carrie Buck, who was diagnosed as being feeble minded and instituted to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded. Carrie Buck was born on July 02, 1906 to Emma Harlowe Buck, who had Carrie out of wed lock. Back then, it was considered wrong to have a child out of wed lock. Therefore, Emma was deemed Feeble Minded and committed to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for Federal violations of Sections 20 (b) 20 (d) (1) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), 77t(d)(1), and 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1) 21(d)(3)(A), 21)e), and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(3)(A), and 78u(e), and 78aa. The first cause of action pertains to Defendant, Gerard Warrens, individually. 2. The First Amended Complaint also contains a cause of action for violations of A.R.S. § 44-1801(26) which defines "offers to sell" or "offers for sale" pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1801(15) and sales as defined pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1801(21) and A.R.S. § 44-1841 requiring registration of any dealer or salesperson from
Mr. Brown is a 35 year old male who presented to the ED via LEO following a standoff. His wife took out IVC paperwork out on Mr. Brown, which she reported he has been threatening suicide. Per documentation he told officers that if they come near him he'll take one of them with him. Before the assessment Officer Hurley was spoken with. He reports tonight they found Mr. Brown in his truck and asked him to get out and come with them.
Margaret Fuller fights for equality in her essay The Great Lawsuit. She discusses the idea that women are equal in every way to men and deserve the rights that men get just by being born male. Fuller’s argument shares a lot of similarities with Emerson’s idea of self-reliance. She discusses the idea of one universal order, and the notion of leaving the past in the past so as to move forward, although Fuller does share some ideas with Emerson, her essay held a different meaning of self-reliance for women than it did for men. Margaret Fuller adopts Emerson’s idea of one universal order, and claims that “if the woman apparelled in flesh, to one master only are they accountable.
A Civil Action is a movie based on a true story about an epic courtroom showdown where Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious personal-injury attorney files a lawsuit against two of the nation's largest corporations. He accuses, Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace Company for causing the deaths of children from water contamination by the illegitimate dumping of chemical wastes into natural water sources. The first issue brought up in this movie is concealing or misrepresenting of the truth also known as deceit. Deceit occurs when an individual withholds or misrepresents information by making false statements with the intent of altering another person’s position on a matter. In the movie, Jan does some personal investigations after he notices that there’s
This proves that throughout the case, Cendant Corporation wasn’t acting fully ethical nor with the desired fiduciary actions to their investors and the auditing team in this case being Ernst&Young. Aside from the trust being broken apart between both, there was never a sign of an internal control inside Cedant. Therefore, there shows that the corporate governance for Cendant Corporation didn’t have signs of existence as well. Most frauds that were occurring before the implementation of the SOX-2002, had top management such as in Cendant that didn’t have care for the ethical performances as much as in today’s corporate world with more regulations in hand by the government. At the end, Cendant had filings against them concerning their corporate governance
