Case Analysis : ' Gawley ' V. Indiana University

I. The court correctly granted summary judgment for the School’s motion; as the Student’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

The Question: Has the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty, included the operative facts for cause of action in her claim against the Defendants, Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc. and Rauleigh J. Ringer, or has said Plaintiff insufficiently stated the facts, therefore making indefinite allegations and validating the move for a more definite statement? Or, is it that, the mechanisms of discovery could be an open alternative to the Defendants, which would aid in gathering any information needed for the defense to frame a response to said Plaintiff, therefore invalidating the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(E) of Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure?

Did the California or Federal Statute violate David Albert and Samuel Roth’s First Amendment freedom of speech? Did California violate David Alberts Due Process?

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

In February of 1992, in the Supreme Court further (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) held that victims might be awarded monetary damages in sex discrimination cases. The case involved a high school woman who said she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher. She filed for damages in Federal District Court, which dismissed the complaint, saying Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals agreed. But the U.S. Supreme Court held that compensatory and punitive damages

The Plaintiff contends that Baylor’s knowledge of the potential threat Elliott and other student-athletes posed as well as their deliberate lack of concern subjected her to an increased risk of being sexually assaulted. Specifically, Hernandez alleges that the university failed to address and intentionally concealed the sexual violence committed by football players for several years; the Plaintiff also states that Baylor’s staff was directly and repeatedly told about the sexual assaults committed

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

The NCAA moved to dismiss this complaint for summary judgment and the result was that the district court granted this motion.

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

Ms. Fisher along with her legal counsel based her allegation of racial discrimination on the university’s system

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary for the NCAA because the courts recognized that the NCAA had no control of the incident. In the case brief, it was stated that the Court compared the Yost v. Wasbach College case, which the plaintiff filed a suit against his college, his local fraternity chapter, and the national fraternity due to injuries sustained at the local chapter house. In this case, summary judgment was granted to the National chapter because they are neither present nor responsible for the day-to-day activities of their local chapters. This particular case echoed the sentiments of the Lanni v. NCAA case. Even though Norte Dame University (the University where the incident occurred) is a member of the NCAA, it does not mean that the NCAA is not liable to the injury or negligent. Therefore, the Court favored the NCAA in their