Context Of Silkwood V. Kerr Mcgee Nuclear Corp

After the end of the Civil War, the state of Georgia believed they deserved 35 million acres of land, so they claimed those 35 million acres of land from the Yazoo river which belong to the Native Americans. So basically, the land was kind of stolen. In the year 1795, the state legislator for Georgia sold those 35 million acre of state land to 4 private land companies for the price of 1.5 cent per acre. In 1796, a new legislator for Georgia found out that the previous legislators of Georgia who voted to sell parcels of the 35 million acres of land were stockholders in the companies that sold the land. The legislator also discovered that they were bribed in helping to re-sell the land for a higher amount while committing fraud and corruption.

Publications created by high school and college students are under constant scrutiny from their audience of students, parents and administrators. Each publication must navigate a variety of challenges including funding, staffing and their school’s administration. One of the most pressing issues facing school publications today is prior review, the process by which a school’s administration must approve the newspaper, magazine or yearbook before it is distributed. There have been many cases involving prior review of high school publications, most notably Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. There have been relatively few cases focusing on this issue as related to college publications, and this paper will examine how the Hazelwood ruling has been applied to cases involving these publications.

Desperate, Anne asked Jan to take the case to just find out who it was said to be responsible and for them to apologize to the families, including herself, for what they did. The Woburn case had been neglected at the firm, because of how expensive it would be to proceed with it. Jan and his employees would have to hire geologists and a whole research team to investigate. Jan’s strong will and determination played part in his decision to eventually accept the case. He worked closely with his partner, Kevin Conway, at the firm, who warned him that the Woburn case was “a black hole.”

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

However, in this case, the plaintiff did claim that defendants be held strictly liable and negligent because the dangers of the asbestos through maintenance was foreseeable when used in conjunction with their products. But the Corrigan explains in his opinion that by recognizing such claims by the plaintiff would provide an unprecedented expansion of strict products liability. While in California manufacturers are held strictly liable for a defect in the product. Yet, it has never been held that this responsibility extends to preventing injuries that would be used in conjunction with the defendants product. The dangerous features in question were not an integral part of the product’s design. Therefore through this fact, Corrigan had asserted that to decide for the plaintiff would not further the purposes of strict liability, nor would it serve public policy by requiring manufacturers to warn about the dangerous propensities of products they do not design, make or sell.

BRENDA WELLS, Administrator of the Estate of DANNY J. WELLS, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY and SCOTT K. FONCANNON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JAMES JERNIGAN, deceased, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4265. James L. Foreman, Senior District Judge. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. OVERVIEW: The widow's husband died on October 3, 1987, while taking a ride in a plane that

After the discovery of plutonium contamination on Karen Silkwood’s body and in the apartment, which she shared with co-workers, Silkwood died in a mysterious auto accident. Her father, her estate administrator, then filed suit against Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation for personal injury, mental distress, and property damage.

Style of Cause and Citation: - R. V. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130 Court: - Supreme Court of Canada Facts of the Case: - Appellant is a addicted to drugs - Was a dealer as well - Has a prior coniction in relation to drugs - Has served time for his prior conviction - Was then convicted on three accounts of possession with the purpose of trafficking Issues/ Questions before the court: - Is the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 5(3) of the CDSA unconstitutional? - Dose this violate section 12,7, and 9 of the charter? - Do the provincial courts have the power to rule that something is unconstitutional? Procedural History: - Provincial court sentenced the appellant to twelve months under s. 5(3) of the CDSA - Appellant stated that

This case clarifies who is defined as a supervisor in harassment lawsuits. The opinion of the case states that “an employee is a supervisor for purposes of … liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.” This means that if the employee fired, demoted, disciplined, changed the work schedule of, or transferred the victim, etc. then the employer is liable for harassment. But, if the person is a manager without the power to change the victim’s employment status, then the employer is not liable for harassment so long as the employer established a system that allowed the victim to notify senior management of the harassment so that senior management could deal with the harassing

What is the explanation of the standard view on whistleblowing presented by Sissela Bok and reported by Robert Larmer in his article?

In the early 1970s, Silkwood worked as a lab analyst in an Oklahoma Kerr-McGee plant which manufactured plutonium pins used as fuel for nuclear reactors (The Karen Silkwood Story, 2004).. Plutonium, a radioactive chemical element, is known to be highly toxic and carcinogenic. Silkwood, an elected union official and outspoken critic of Kerr-McGee’s health and safety practices, began collecting and recording information to substantiate her charges that employees at the plant were dangerously exposed to toxic chemicals. In early November 1974, Silkwood was

The case is about the two officials, Otto Otepka and Daniel Ellsbergs, who acted as whistle blowers. The Organization around which the case revolves is the State Department. Both Otepka and Ellsberg broke the law and acted alone in secret and in the services which they believed to be important public interests. The individuals have tried to justify civil disobedience. Though both the cases are different, but they acted upon the same laws of motion in some ways. Both the men are ideologically opposites, but they have similarities between their respective exploits, viewed on a suitably high plane of reflection after all the human juices and interesting particulars have been drained away to leave the arid generalities. They followed their higher

“A tiny speck of plutonium-239, as little as three millionths of a gram, can cause lung cancer. One pound of plutonium-239 contains enough specks to kill nine billion people instantly” (Pringle 26). Plutonium-239 is a human-made element, also known as the most dangerous substance on earth. As a by-product of uranium fission, plutonium-239 is created by generating electricity from nuclear sources. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is hazardous and threatening to health. The use of nuclear energy should be banned as evidenced by the number of accidents, health effects, and global impact.

Sharon Watkins earned her 15 minutes of fame the honest way, as the Enron employee who blew the lid off of then CEO Ken Lay's debauchery. But for every celebrated whistleblower, there are hundreds who remain in the shadows. And for good Samaritans who do tell their tale, the price they pay can be exorbitant.

The company faced issues related to the methods it used in investigating the unauthorized disclosure of nonpublic information to the press by the members of its board of directors. Apparently, Hewlett Packard hired some investigators in the case. The investigator used various techniques such as pre-texting- calling the telephone company and pose as someone else with an aim of obtaining that person’s information or records. The company and the board chairman, Patricia Dunn, were defending the company’s investigations about the director and the journalist. They cited that there were aggressive efforts to note the core source of leaks that were fully justified by the investigators