Joan Gagnon Case Summary

1.16 (A).1, 5.5(B) - Upon learning that Carl had taken on a case on his own, which is an example of unauthorized practice of law, Attorney Howe should have notified the clients that Carl did not have such authority to take on a case, set discounted fees or conduct an interview without Attorney Howe’s supervision, thus in good consciousness Attorney Howe cannot take on clients under fraudulent circumstances.

Penny Ann Beernsten, a thirty-six year old small business co-owner and physical fitness instructor, went through a traumatic experience on the afternoon of July 29, 1985. She jogged at a stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline in Wisconsin. She was planning on meeting with her father at the beach at 4:00 PM and she started the jog at 3:50 PM, but was grabbed and taken to the woods where she was raped and deprived her of oxygen by suffocation until she passed out. When she woke up, she walked out of the woods, where couples comforted her until she found her husband and finally the police. (Possley).

Louise Gosselin has undergone a life of many obstacles. She struggled with drug and alcohol addiction, as well as psychological problems. As a result of this she has been in and out of numerous jobs of various nature. For the majority of her adult life she has received social assistance. When Quebec decided to change its existing social assistance scheme in 1984, Louise felt her constitutional and provincial rights were violated, resulting in her pursuit of legal action. This is how the case of Gosselin v. A.G. (Quebec) came to be.

On December 1, 2015, 65 year-old Loretta Macpherson arrived at the emergency room of St. Charles Health System, located in Bend, Oregon. Ms. Macpherson arrived to the emergency room complaining of anxiety. When interviewed about her medication history, Ms. Macpherson was unable to identify the medications which she had been prescribed after her recent hospitalization at St. Charles for brain surgery. After examination, the emergency room physician ordered fosphenytoin, an anti-seizure medication, to be administered via intravenous infusion to Ms. Macpherson. In error she received rocuronium, a paralytic drug, causing her to stop breathing and suffer a cardiopulmonary arrest. Ms. Macpherson suffered irreversible brain damage and was placed

The underlying issues in both cases are racial discrimination. For Cheryl Boulden in the affirmative action case the issue is being “an African American woman among the good ol’ boys in Indiana.” She was recruited because of race and her permanent handicap was seen as an asset for a diversity program lacking any. Yet these qualities made her a target of racism. Susan Finn’s ethnic discrimination presents a dilemma of how to deal with a contract physician’s abusive behavior “toward Hispanics and female staff as well as patients” (Reeves, 2006, p. 79). While the issues of racial and gender discrimination is not unusual, the failure of these agencies to address multiple complaints is.

In the case of Gagnon v. Coombs, Joan Coombs did not have the right to convey the Shelburne farm to a trust that Joan herself established. Joan was the agent and Francis Gagnon was the principal in this case. At the time when Joan transferred the property to the trust she was no longer an agent but was unaware. Even though Joan thought she was still an agent she did go against the duties of an agent, thus not giving her the right to move the property to a trust.

On November 15, 2016, Plaintiffs, Lauren Katz (“Lauren”) and Phyllis Rifkin (“Phyllis”), filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for equitable relief to prevent the sale of the residence in which they currently reside. The general thrust of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint centers around a power of attorney executed by Daniel Katz (“Daniel”), naming his son, Defendant Martin Katz (“Martin”), as attorney-in-fact. Complaint, ¶ 9. Contemporaneous to the filing of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Martin from selling his father’s home in order to finance Daniel’s ongoing and significant medical expenses. This Court denied the motion

This case is between the (plaintiff) Mrs. White and the (defendants) Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C. as O’Malley’s Tavern. A Motion of Summary Judgment on behalf of O’Malley’s Tavern in the US District Court of Northern District of Indiana. Is being argued/presented.

The issue with Gagnon v. Scarpelli case is whether a previously sentenced probationer is allowed a hearing when their probation is revoked and whether they should be entitled the representation of an appointed counsel at that hearing (CaseBriefs, 2017.) In July 1965, Gerald Scarpelli pleaded guilty to an armed robbery charge in Wisconsin where he was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment but had his sentence suspended and placed on probation for seven years (Thomson, 2017.) Gerald Scarpelli, a felony probationer, was arrested after being caught by Illinois police committing a burglary which he stated that the admission for the crime, given his constitutional rights and stated that he and Kleckner had broken into the house to steal merchandise

The Gagnon v. Scarpelli case established additional constitutional protections for probation and parole hearings by addressing the right to counsel (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). The Supreme Court reviewed Morrissey v. Brewer in their consideration of the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case, and the justices determined probation and parole revocation hearing should follow the same judicial procedures (O’Leary & Hanrahan, 1978). Therefore, since Scarpelli did not receive a hearing for the revocation of his probation, the Supreme Court stated that Scarpelli’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated citing the Morrissey v. Brewer precedent (Florida State University Law Review, 2014). Furthermore, the decision concerning a probationer or parolee’s

Prior cases such as Trust of Bingham v. Commissioner, Lykes v. Commissioner, Kornhauser v. United States, Deputy v. du Pont were given as examples. The principle the Court derived from these cases is that the characterization, as “business” or “personal” of the litigation costs of resisting a claim depend on whether or not the claim arises in connection with the taxpayer’s profit-seeking activities. It does not depend on the consequences that might result to a taxpayer’s income-producing property from a failure to defeat the claim. That leads to the question: did the wife’s claims respecting Gilmore’s stockholdings arise in connection with his profit-seeking activities?

you” (3.138). It is not only that Helen is not to have any choice in the

Issue 2: Has Patricia breached her duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company when advising her sister Faye, that SEPL were buying a large amount of shares in FPPL?

committee for help and saw it as her "duty" to refuse to help her. Her

1. Jessica Gallinelli should hold position in Honeywell and take short position in General Electric Company (GE) simultaneously