Case Study : Lopez V. Kmart Corporation Essay

This case was based on facts and opinions from Peter Ramirez as being an employee for Yosemite Water Company as a route sales representative/relief sales representative. This case was filed because Mr. Ramirez felt that he wasn’t getting paid properly for all the jobs and duties he performed at the company. Also, the case was to resolve whether a bottled water driver was entitled to overtime pay or whether he was outside salesperson and being exempt from the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Mr. Ramirez left the company and then he brought action against Yosemite for unpaid overtime wages. Yosemite defense was that Mr. Ramirez was an outside salesperson and exempt from wage and overtime laws. The best way to avoid costly lawsuits is with careful review of employee classifications (Hsiao-Ying and Kleiner, 2005).

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

* Minors are defined as individuals under the age of majority to contract. This is the age at which a person is entitled to the management of his/her own estate (18 in most states).

Contractual capacity is, “The legal capability to form a binding contract. A number of classes of people lack contractual capacity, and these include minors…” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2010). A minor’s capacity to contract and the lack of an employee’s capacity to bind a company by contract could be used in defense against a breach of contract.’ Consideration is necessary for any contract to exist. A promissory estoppel is used when consideration requirements are absent (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p.250).

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

Case Review: Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993)

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

Facts: The employed plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court against her employer, claiming that she was not paid the legally mandated minimum wage. The mandated wage in question being $14.50 proportioned to a 48-hour work that was established through statutory code in 1932. The primary reason for passage of the law was to protect the health and morals of women and children and to create a commission to investigate inadequate wages. The defendant maintained it had the right to refuse payment of the proper wages due because of the supposed invalidity and unconstitutionality of the law under due process. The defendant also put forth the defense that the wages provided by the business

In week 6, I will be discussing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Secondly, I will discuss applications to hiring health care providers and how to establish reasonable accommodations. In my review of case EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., I will discover my findings in the American with Disabilities Act and what it entails. In conclusion, I will discuss my overall discoveries and what was important.

On Tuesday, November 08, 2016, at approximately 1138 hours, I Officer M. Alfaro was dispatched to Albertson’s grocery store at 3317 N Midland Dr in reference to a check person. Dispatch advised that the complainant wanted to have an employee checked because it was believed that she was in possession of a firearm.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

In the case of Howell v. Enterprise Publishing Co. there are similar defamation claims the the case of Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corporation. On May 9, 2005 James Howell who served as the superintendent of the sewer department for the town of Abington was place on administrative leave. Howell was later eventually fired from the position due to the discovery of inappropriate and unauthorized images owned by the sewer company. After his termination, reporters at The Enterprise Company began covering Howells case for months. Howell later filled suit against the publishing company claiming they defamed him by reporting he was being charged with charges of conflict of interest and fraudulent collection of unemployment benefits and pornography

1. Competent parties. A court will not uphold a contract entered into by parties the law does not believe have the capacity to take on such a legal responsibility, such as minors or people who are mentally incapacitated.

There were also a few grocery stores on Myrtle avenue. One of them was a place called Mr. Coco. From the outside, a variety of fruits and vegetables were out in bins, clearly visible to all from the outside. After going inside to check it out, many other options were noticed, such as breads, more fruits and vegetables (including bananas) for a good price. This store also had different varieties of milk and cheeses, like many other locations. Although the inside was very small compared to the larger chains, it seems like a great, local spot for the neighborhood to find healthy food

Kate is the owner of a successful business, selling women’s shoes. Her business is expanding fast and she wants to upgrade her business structure to a more appropriate one. What would be your recommendation to Kate and why? What are the factors that influence you with this advice?