Case Analysis : Mexico Rain Forest Litigation

The decision makers in the “Something’s Rotten in Hondo” are George the Plant Manager and Bill George’s boss. The Stakeholders are George, George’s family, the town of Hondo, Environmental Protection Agency, all who are affected by the plants pollution, the Mexican town, and the environment. George had moved from El Paso, Texas to Hondo, Texas with his family four years ago to assume the roll of the manager at Ardnak Plastic Inc. This plant manufactures plastic parts for small equipment and has several hundred workers from the town of Hondo. For the past few months George has been getting calls from his boss Bill because the emissions from the plants smokestacks were constantly above Environmental Protection

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

Do you think it’s fair that one farmer had to settle (say he was guilty) because that was cheaper than trying to fight Monsanto’s lawsuits? Why or why not?

The Alva family enrolled their son, Sergio, at Paradise Cove, a behavioral modification program for troubled youth which was operated by the Defendants. The Alvas then initiated a suit against Teen Help Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs, R & B Billing, Dixie Contract Services, Robert Lichfield, Karr Fransworth, and Brent Facer, alleging a number of tort claims which arose from the enrollment of their child. This initial suit was made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on February 25, 2000. On August 5, 2003 the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted after hearing arguments regarding the motion on December 16, 2003. The motion for summary judgment was granted and filed on December 17, 2003. The Plaintiffs then did not file their notice of appeal until January 17, 2004, which was after the deadline to file such notice. The court then required the Plaintiffs to show reason as to why the appeal should be honored even though it was late.

So García and four others came to the Supreme Court case hearing: Chris Alderete and James de Anda of the American G.I. Forum and John J. Herrera and Carlos Cadena from the League of United Latin American Citizens. The Supreme Court heard the Hernández V. The State of Texas case in 1954. There was two sides for this case, Hernández’ and The State of Texas. García fought for Hernández and argued that the 14th amendment not only protected the rights of races like white and black but also class. He said that those citizens in the jury selection process were being discrediting and excluding people based on class and that’s why there hasn’t been a Mexican-American citizen on a Texas jury in over 25 years. This affected all the minorities and lower classes especially Mexican-Americans and made it unfair to them in court cases. On the other hand The State of Texas said that the 14th amendment only protected the rights of whites and blacks and that Mexican-Americans fall under the white class. Furthermore, The State of Texas verified that no Mexican-American had served on the jury in over 25 years but proposed that it was just a coincidence and not because of discrimination. I believe The State of Texas was worried about having minorities and separate classes in juries because they might not make the same decisions that the average white man would make. Thus Texas was hesitant to promote the electing of any Mexican-American to a jury

Identified in “General Business Organizations” and has been a successful group in Texas since 1994 is the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR). Business leaders formed this group and were determined to change what they perceived as “Texas’ Wild West Litigation Environment” by changing the state’s tort laws. Torts are wrongful acts; in the Texans for Lawsuit Reform, taking away the right of a citizen who loses in a civil lawsuit can be forced to pay an extra amount as punishment. The Texans for Lawsuit reform is a volunteered-led organization that “seeks to create a civil justice system that discourages non-meritorious lawsuits or outrageous claims for damages” (votesmart.org). TLRPAC, which stands for Texans for Lawsuit Reform Political Action Committee

Governments would traditionally act as a force of the people, by the people and for the people, but recently however, corporations have placed themselves within this relationship, to influence governments to act in their favor. A notable example in this sense is represented by the oil drilling companies, which continue to pollute and prevent alternative sources of energy from developing. Exxon Mobil has for instance spent millions of dollars to prove that global warming is a make belief phenomenon, rather than a real threat (Mandia).

It is the goal of all healthcare providers and organizations to provide quality care to all patients without error. The truth is, even healthcare providers make some mistakes. The question is, when an error occurs who is to be held responsible? Is it, the nurse who administered the wrong medication, due to being overworked and lack of staff to help? Or is it the Healthcare Organization (HCO), because they should have fixed the staffing issues. There are so many factors that contribute to an error. I believe each situation should be properly investigated, before placing blame where it should or should not be placed.

A muddy shoe print was use to link an unnamed man who was on the run from the police to his vehicle which was carrying 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. Police detective Chad Larner attempted to pull over this man in a Mazda for speeding but he would not stop. The man was eventually able to lose Larner. He then parked the car, got out and tried to hide. The police later found the car and found the man two blocks away. He attempted to bribe a young woman to walk with him by saying that he would give her $40. The woman told the police that he told her that he was in a police chase in which he was not the driver and he was trying to hide from the police. When the police searched the car they found four bags of the 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. The police also

Yes, I would call the VHSL to complain about the “ineligible” player. My reasoning is supported by the Tort Law, which falls under the 5th Amendment. The legal case and ruling that support my choice is Castaldo v. Jefferson County within this ruling the major principle is negligence, the failure to exercise due care resulting injury or loss. There are four elements that are tested with negligence; they are duty, breach, causation and injury.

Many of the lawsuits are for alleged human rights abuse by large corporations. There have been claims brought against ExxonMobil and Chevron for human rights abuse. Mercedes-Benz was sued on the biases of labor abuse, and Rio Tinto was sued by New Guinea residents for environmental

Now comes the Defendant, Joseph Bettina, files this Motion For temporary Support and would shows:

In my understanding of the cases of US v. Lopez and Gonzales v. Raich, I find that the elasticity of interpretation of laws can greatly change the outcomes of these cases.

Unocal case started in 1996 and represents itself a suit from four Burmese villagers against Unocal Corporation and its parent company, Union Oil Company of California, in accordance with the Law on Aliens Tort Claims Act. The claim involved various human rights violations, including forced labor, false imprisonment, assault and negligence by military people ( who was hired to protect the project), by relations to building a gas pipeline project in Myanmar. In the year 1997, the U.S. federal district court in Los Angeles agreed to hear Doe v. Unocal backed by the fact that corporations and their officials can be held legally responsible, in conformity with the Law on Aliens Tort Claims for violations of international human rights in foreign countries and that American courts have the right to decide on these requirements (Escr-net.org., 2002). After three years of findings the plaintiffs showed the court evidences, which contains an information that Unocal knew that military committed illegal acts against villagers and subjected the entire villages to relocate themselves for the benefit of the

I am currently reviewing the court order for the Garcia v. Tejada family, while Dr. Aronson is on vacation. The Court Order states that Dr. Aronson is to first meet with both parents together. This is not our normal procedure for a forensic evaluation and I would like to be able to explain to Dr. Aronson the reasoning that the parent have to meet together upon his return from