Benjamin Griffin Case Brief

Case 3: “Henry Gifford, et al. v. United States Green Building Council (USGBC), et al., 10‐7747 (filed October 8, 2010)”.

This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County, when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended up using aliases by the names of John Doe, Jane Doe and son D.D. Doe as a deterrent from the public so the family would not endure any additional embarrassment, slander, and/or liable regarding the son’s handicap. The defendants of this case were

On the evening of January 5, 1993, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger 's drink. After that , they would steal Geiger 's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the morning of January 6, Coffman placed a packet of rat poison in her purse and board the school bus. Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, of the plan and show her the poison. Hernandez went and informed her homeroom teacher, Sherry

Did the union violate Title I, Section 101(a) of the Landrum-Griffin Act in this case? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy?

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

At 14:32 Haring was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was taken away for booking and a Data Master Breathalyzer test.

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.

My client William Harvey is being thrown in jail because he discovered that we are mostly made out of blood, not air. He found his discovery by cutting ari venes of animals and finding out that blood spilled out of the air vinens not air. He also proved that the heart pumps blood not creates ari by showing us that the only way the book could move is if the heart was pumping it no He proved this so he is not being a heretic.

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

The discovery of unethical billing alongside unethical accounting practices provoked a chain reaction towards a hospital accountant by the name of Rehberg. An accountant trying to serve justice was entangled in a web of lies. Rehberg vs. Paulk is a very interesting Supreme Court case. Rehberg vs. Paulk embodied much of the injustice that is not presented to the public when sworn officials break the very laws that are supposed to be protected. The Rehberg vs. Paulk case provides controversy among different jurisdictions within the judicial system and gives examples of the different elements of crime within the case.

The Missouri Supreme Court in O'Grady explained how the Missouri wrongful death statute should be applied. The O'Grady Court rejected the traditional notions that a wrongful death claim is a "derivative claim" or an "independent claim" (similar to what the defendants are alleging). Instead, it clearly held that: "a cause of action for wrongful death will lie whenever the person injured would have been entitled to recover from the defendant but for the fact that the injury resulted in death.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

The American Bar Association, (ABA) is one of the largest voluntary proficient establishments in the world that’s centered around lawyers and law student. ABA was established in August 21, 1878 and the head office located in Chicago, IL. The ABA is devoted to providing the public with knowledgeable information about the law, legal system, education and the courts. The American Bar Association Mission/goals are not only to promote members of professional growth but also to promote complete and equal participation in the association. ABA will like to increase public understating by holding governments accountable under law. Pledge important access to justice for all races. However, while The American Bar Association (ABA) providing these services

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

Moore v. Midwest Distribution, Inc., 76 Ark. App. 397, 65 S.W. 3d 490 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002)