Defendants Case Study

3. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: State the decision in administrative hearings and in the lower court(s). The trial court judge found that "Grant was negligent because of her failure to provide other transportation, her failure to supervise, her negligent choice of route to the park and her failure to adequately instruct the students."

My perspectives mirror the dominant part sentiment on this case since I thought the time limitation mandate was unlawful. I do trust a city may have an enthusiasm for passing laws deminishing conduct for the general's wellbeing and security. Be that as it may, I don't think this was the situation; the law was not sufficiently contracted in Pinellas Park. It did exclude every single sensible exemption, and it positively didn't target just exercises well on the way to bring about wrongdoing. Or maybe, I think Pinella Park was doing the inverse. The disagreeing assessment, then again, felt that the check in time statute was protected. They thought it was impartial, additionally calling attention to that I, alongside the

The family has been determined indigent for services. Samkisha has received public defender services for her criminal matters and Mrs. Beale has received Medicaid since she was 16 years of age. Mrs. Beale disclosed she is court ordered to receive child support in the amount of $202 per month from Mr. Robinson for Samkisha, but stated he seldom make payments of such. She also reported she receives unemployment in the amount of $204 per week and Social Security Income (SSI) for Samkisha in the amount of $670 per month.

A general reading of the opinion reveals that the case involves a question as to whether there was any substantial evidence to show that the individual defendants participated in the battery, and that defendant Rose City was liable vicariously

Defendants generally are given plea bargaining negotiations “for one or more of the following reason: (a) reduce a charge, (b) elimination of a possible waiver to the criminal court, and (c) agreement for dispositional program… Any plea deal must be entered voluntarily and intelligently, or the conviction could be overturned on appeal (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504) There are many pleas that a defendant may choose to enter in court. Guilty, not guilty, an Alford Plea, and also nolo contendere, also known as “no contest”. A guilty plea is when the defendant is admitting their guilt to the crime, and giving up their rights to the trial, “more than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504).” When a defendant pleads not guilty they are saying that they believe that they did not do anything wrong. An Alford Plea is when a defendant is pleading guilty but still claims their innocence.

Because the Contractor Defendants either could not be located or have ceased doing business, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims against those defendants with prejudice.   Accordingly, plaintiffs now seek damages only from the Liberty Defendants.

91st St. Joint Venture, 330 Md. 620 (1993), the Court of Appeals, in a per curiam order, vacated an interlocutory injunction ordered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, while the same parties were litigating the same issues in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. 91st st. Joint Venture, 330 Md. at 623. In that case, the State Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) filed an action to enjoin the defendants from constructing a gazebo in a protected area in Ocean City, Maryland. Id. at 623-24. Rather than respond to the action, the defendants filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 624. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, then, issued an injunction prohibiting the DNR from enforcing their regulations and proceeding with the action in Worcester County. Id. at

These three conditions must be satisfied by the landowner (The Tukwila School District) for immunity from the liability of Olson’s injury. However, the burden of proof lies on the defendant’s shoulder to prove that Foster High School (apart of the Tukwila School District), where the

My views mirror the majority opinion on this case, because I thought the regulation decree was unconstitutional. I do believe that a city may have an interest in passing laws diminishing behavior for the public's health and safety. Nonetheless, I do not think this was the case; the law was not constricted enough in Pinellas Park. It did not include all sensible exemptions, and it definitely didn't target only events most likely to end up in crime. Rather, I think Pinella Park was doing the contrary; the unorthodox opinion, on the other hand, felt that the regulation decree was constitutional. They thought it was reasonable, also pointing out that I, along with the majority, interpreted the law too strictly than it was actually. Furthermore, the minority judge did not agree that minors had the right to assembly in public places during late hours, the judge demanded there had to be an adult with them.

Kelley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 was a 2003 wrongful termination case heard by the 10th circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. The issue at hand was if the plaintiff’s 14th amendment procedural due process rights had been violated when he was employment terminated by the defendant school district. The school district had relieved the plaintiff from his position as the school’s head football and wrestling coach after the plaintiff had been ejected from a football game he had been coaching. The plaintiff’s had argued that the school district had violated the coach’s constitutionally granted due process rights by not giving the coach 30-days notice of termination or a post-termination hearing to explain himself. The district court ultimately

Facts: E.L. Mottley and his wife, Annie E. Mottley, (plaintiffs) were passengers on board a train operated by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (defendants). Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are citizens of the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs, while passengers on board a train, were injured in a train wreck on September 7, 1871. The defendants offered the injured plaintiffs a free pass from the defendant’s railroad company in exchange for the agreement that they would not bring suit upon the defendant. The plaintiffs accepted the free passes which would be renewed yearly. Several decades later, in 1906, a law was passed by the U.S. Congress banning free railroad passes. This was passed in order to prevent bribery on government workers and officials. This caused the defendant to refuse the plaintiffs’ renewal of their free passes in which they then filed suit for specific performance in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Wojdyla v. City of ParkRidge, 148 Ill. 2d 417 (1992); Belton v. Forest Preserve Dist., 943 N.E. 2d 221, 227-228 (1st Dist. 2011). Illinois courts have ruled that a duty to maintain public property arises once public improvements are undertaken. West v. Kirkham, 147 Ill. 2d 1 (1992). In this case, the District knew that the crane was going to be delivered on November 9, 2014. Therefore, they had a duty to make sure that the property was reasonably safe when Mr. Nichols delivered the crane. Since the District failed to put up signs and hire a flagman to direct traffic, it caused the property to become unsafe for the workers. Therefore, the District was unable to maintain their property in a reasonably safe manner while Mr. Nichols was on the property. Because of this, the District cannot be immune from the injuries that occurred to Mr.

Quality Immunity could be a double edge sword in many case scenarios. Therefore, often times it is hard to say whether quality immunity should be granted to government officials based off of actions they choose to take. Therefore, in this short paper I am going to research and analysis the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding. In my finding I will address the issues of whether the school was justified or not in the search of Savannah Redding, whether qualified immunity should be given to government officials, and whether I agree with the finding in the case.

Major had to destroy and rebuild the pier and sued State for damages and State filed a cross-complaint alleging that Moffatt did not use reasonable care in the approval of the design. Three attempts at pleads were made and it was determined that Moffat was not in privity of contract with Major or State due to State being subjected to the economic loss rule.

The defendant’s mother owned the property, where he removed a gun from his belt and threw it under a bush as he fled from approaching police. The court found that a public easement gives the right to the public of freedom of use and should be enjoyed without any infringing action by the owner of the freeholding land. Marrow at 11. In this case, the interaction occurred on a public easement. The interaction occurred on the strip between the sidewalk and street. The strip includes a city-owned fire hydrant and a tree that was paid for and owned by the city. It is necessary that a resident seek permission to cut down any tree. The land is a public easement because it has city-owned trees and fire hydrants. The police officers were on the public easement in the interaction with Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt may argue that, because he takes care of the land and is the owner of the freeholding land, it is not a public easement. However, the city has access to the land and Mr. Pitt must comply with the public’s right to freedom of use of the easement. The court would find that the interaction between the officers and Mr. Pitt occurred on a public