Hoffman v. Jones The case of Hoffman v. Jones, argued by the Supreme Court of Florida in 1973, was more accurately Phillip Francis Hoffman, Jr., and Pav-A Way Corporation, a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. Hazel J. Jones, as Administratrix of the Estate of William Harrison Jones, Jr., Deceased, Respondent. Widow Hazel Jones brought a wrongful death suit against Phillip Hoffman and the Pav-A-Way Corporation after her husband William was killed in an accident. It was apparent that both parties were negligent in the accident that took the life of Hazel Jones’ husband. The issue started after the Florida Circuit Court ruled against Hazel Jones’ request to utilize “comparative negligence”, which would offer her a percentage of damages based on the courts assessment of fault for each party. This was in comparative to the court’s case law standard of “contributory negligence”, which would disallow her from collecting any amount of damages at all. Hazel Jones appealed the Circuit Court’s decision and took the case to the Florida District Court of Appeal. This court reversed the decision of the Florida Circuit Court and held that contributory negligence, the state case law standard, should be replaced with comparative negligence. Hoffman et. al. appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Florida, who granted a writ of certiorari, and heard the case. The Supreme Court of Florida was evidently unhappy with the Florida District Court of Appeal’s unauthorized decision regarding
For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).
Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) held that the discretion to impose the death sentence for specific crimes was to be bi-furcated into two separate trials. The first to determine guilt or innocence; the second to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors. The State of Oceana adopted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Wende, 600 P. 2d 1071 (Cal: Supreme Court 1979) In
The Daily Record Staff. "Legal Opinions - U.S. Supreme Court: October 14, 2008." Daily Record, The; Baltimore, Md.. 14 Oct. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.
The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.
Scott’s second set of attorney’s, Alexander P. Field and David N. Hall filed the appeal in hopes of another hearing being denied, so the case could be elevated to the United States Supreme Court. For Example, they
favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is
1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying
A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,
1. This story is about the Supreme Court’s decision. What process did this case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court?
Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.
The appellate court reversed the rule by the trial court concluding that Plaintiff fraudulently induced Iva
case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to