Case Briefing and Problem Solving Essay

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.

Note: Due to the issuance of certain new accounting literature, changes in the status of ongoing projects during the past year, or evolution of practice, the following updates to the existing cases should be noted.

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

Judgement/Disposition: Yes, the order of the Appellate Division that invalidated the ESDC’s determination was reversed, with costs, and the petitions were dismissed.

SUPPORT FOR ETHICAL ISSUES: As stated in the case, Burlington did not “question the jury’s determination that the motivation for these acts was retaliatory.” Inferring that this is an admission of guilt by Burlington, one can conclude that a deliberate business decision to retaliate outweighed any legal ramifications.

The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his

The court deciphering between criminal negligence and recklessness. Criminal negligence being a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The focus of this paper is case management. Case management has evolved into a diverse profession which includes many disciplines and is exercised in many settings. Case management involves the process of coordinating multiple services on behalf of clients and has been practiced now for several decades. Many disciplines have engaged in case management and identify themselves as case managers. Case managers work with many populations and settings and play an important role in today’s society. The following analysis explores how case management developed, how it is defined, its components, and how it relates to other nursing care delivery models. All these aspects are reviewed with the purpose to show the importance of case management

Both parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the information. The motivating factor in both decisions was to protect the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to each company had not been proven.

Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC owners, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene employed Ms. Jennifer Lawson as a junior executive secretary for three years. During her time of employment, she encountered proprietary information which was covered under a confidentiality agreement she signed. Upon termination Ms. Lawson provided said information to a direct competitor of Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC violating this agreement. The plaintiffs, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene are suing the defendant Ms. Jennifer Lawson for potential profit loss to their business and violation of the confidentiality agreement. The defendant is counter suing for wrongful termination from Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC. stating her termination was issued due to her

Do you believe that Merck acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner with regard to Vioxx? Why or why not? (In your answer, please address the company’s drug development and

Deciding to cease the sale of the old product is the most obvious and ethical choice. It would eliminate the contamination of HIV. However, the company would suffer immensely from this. Although I would recommend to continue to sell the old product, I would do it as ethically responsible as possible. As a member of the Institute of Management Accountants, I have to abide by the standards of ethical conduct. This case specifically addresses the issue of integrity. This product transmits AIDS, but somehow we need to be able to continue to sell the product.

Ethical issues in the retail pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of the ethical dilemmas faced within Chaguanas Drug Mart Limited

The court found that as a sophisticated participant in the financial market, the buyer should have, and easily could have, protected itself from misrepresentation by demanding that it see the report prior to a closing. Therefore, it seems that the context of the transaction does not play into government’s favor.