Barton V. Rona Case Summary

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

From this incident was any employee disciplined for not following safety procedures. This would establish if the company believes the employees were negligent in their duty.

In 2000, the Arlington Police Department received information stating that Earnest Leon Voyles had exchanged emails that contained sexual content with a fifteen year old girl from London, England. According to this informant the fifteen year old girl, “Amy Chang”, had been solicited for sex by Voyles and had arranged to meet with her in London to engage in a sexual relationship. Sergeant James Crouch of the Arlington Police Department was unsuccessful in contacting “Amy Chang” to verify the arrangement but was not successful, however, he was successful in verifying that Voyles was working as a teacher at a junior high located in Arlington, Texas.

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

According to the definition by the Florida Appellate court, “Negligent retention occurs when, during the course of employment, the employer becomes aware or should have become aware of problems with an employee that indicated his unfitness, and the employer fails to take further action such as investigating, discharge, or reassignment” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 458). Since the record contained evidence of a number of episodes during Landins employment after imprisonment where Honeywell should have become aware if not already aware and have taken action, this is why the court allowed for the negligent retention issue to go to trial.

Do your constitutional rights protect you from state laws? In 1989 Texas v. Johnson, Johnson had burned an American flag and Texas state law protects the American flag from being burned when the flag burner knows it will seriously offend others. Johnson was then arresting and tried, then the case went all the way to the Supreme court. Johnson claimed he was expressing his right to free speech. Flag burning conveyed a political message. Preserving the flag was related to the suppression of expression. There was no breach of peace. Johnson burning the flag was indeed free speech and he is protected by the 1st Amendment in this instance.

In 1994, Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, stated that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford raped her. A year later, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy. After two hearings, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. At some point throughout the duration of these hearings, Morrison personally admitted to having sexual contact with Brzonkala after she said “no” twice, however still affirmed that the sexual act was consensual. Crawford, however, stated that he left the room before any sexual activity commenced and was later charged with a lesser offense that was unrelated to sexual conduct. Being that both Morrison and Crawford were valued varsity members of the prestigious Virginia Tech football team and worried about the continuity of their athletic careers, they made an appeal through the university’s administrative system to reduce their suspensions. After being processed, the punishments were set aside

BATH, N.Y. (WENY) -- The man accused of killing his wife in their Caton home back in September appeared in court Tuesday. Thomas Clayton was in Steuben County Court for a motion hearing, where attorneys from both sides of the case exchanged information in the death of Kelley Stage Clayton.

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case deciding over the rule of slavery in newly discovered territory. The decision occurred in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The Decision took three attempts to finally reach a decision of whether an African American living in recently developed land should be free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, and the Scott v. Sandford Case, and what happened to slavery in the proceeding decades.

Facts of the case: Robert Anthony Williams, also known as Anthony Erthel Williams, escaped from a mental hospital and briefly lived at the YMCA located in Des Moines, Iowa. Soon after, on Christmas Eve in 1968, a 10-year old girl had disappeared from that YMCA while at her brother’s wrestling match. A boy in the parking lot saw Mr. Williams carrying a large bundle to his car with two “skinny” and “white” legs inside of it.

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

Facts: Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General was a case wherein the defendant (Skinner) was convicted twice for armed robbery and once for the crime of stealing chickens and was sentenced to compulsory sterilization as per the provisions of Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935. The act permitted sentences of compulsory sterilization for “habitual offenders” in crimes involving moral turpitude (Showalter, 2012, p. 492). The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (plaintiff) instituted proceedings against Skinner and was ordered to be rendered sterile. It affirmed the order that the operation

Criminal profiling refers to the inference of offender characteristics. Historically, the use of criminal profiling can be traced back to 38 C.E. when Jews were wrongfully accused of blood libel, also known as the kidnapping and murdering the children of Christians for religious rituals during Jewish holidays (Turvey, 2012). As time progressed, criminal profiling has evolved into the study of crime and criminal behaviors, including mental health and physical evidence surrounding a crime that has been committed in an attempt to identify a likely suspect. However, the validity of scientific evidence as a whole was challenged in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 592. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was the “gatekeeper” to prevent “junk science” from entering the courtroom and outlined standards, also known as Daubert standards, for expert testimony including, testing, peer review, error rates and acceptability (Turvey, 2012).