Judge Vs Harvey Case Study

I am going to argue why lying is immoral no matter who you might be lying to, friends, family, and even someone you do not know. This is immoral because even though lying to someone may bring relief or happiness it’s still hiding the truth from that person. Hiding something they deserve to know even though it may hurt them may also be a form of lying. There are many situations where lying may end friendships, relationships, or even tare families apart because most people want to know the truth no matter how harsh, because eventually the truth may come out. In addition to hiding information, there are also other forms of lying. Telling someone false information as well as withholding information are forms of lying. The worst part about telling a lie is that the more you do it the more comfortable one may become. Lying becomes a habit to many people, a habit they have a hard time breaking. Lying can simply be defined in one word, deception.

William Shakespeare once said, “God hath given you one face, and you make yourself another.” Lying is without a doubt never justifiable because lying can lead into even greater conflicts that might never be resolved additionally lying would ruin someone’s reputation; one might argue that lying can be justifiable under one circumstance which is that lying can protect people from danger; however, lying can make someone lose people’s trust.

The contingency theory (Browning, 2007, p. 190) suggests that leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context. This means effective leaders in this era have the ability to distill their complex messages into accessible ones. In other words, an effective leader is aware of his/ her client’s informational needs and values and thus, creates information to suit their needs. Therefore, leaders tend to regulate and control expressive activity in and around the workplace from legal, managerial, and ethical perspectives (Barry B, 2007). This trend tends to work for organizations that try to cover massive change by creating as little impact on their employees as possible without doing anything ethically wrong in their business.

Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY:

The district court ruled against Mr. Comerford’s claim that the evidence brought against him was unconstitutional. For the purpose of this legal argument, Knotts v. U.S., Kyllo v. U.S, and Katz v. U.S. will be used to suggest to the Court that Comerford had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his evening drug runs, and Smith v. Maryland will be used to prove that there is no expectation of privacy regarding the phone numbers dialed. Together, these two cases prove that the government agents were not conducting an illegal search by tracking Comerfords location using The Chum, and that the evidence gathered by this investigation may be used against Comerford in a Court of law.

In case 2 of 15, the plaintiff, Edward Roberts, alleged discrimination based on color. This allegation falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (Mello, J. A. 2015). The courts will have to decide whether the defendant, the trucking company, discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his color. As presiding judge in the case, I would rule on Mr. Roberts’ behalf. The facts of the cases state Mr. Roberts came “in person on March 31, 2005” to apply, which clearly states his color was observed as he put in the application. Mr. Roberts experience was sufficient because he listed 22 months of prior experience as a road driver.

Attorney-Client Privilege: Henry argues that his taped conversations with Williams are protected by the attorney-client privilege because he "hired" Williams as a "jailhouse lawyer.

It is likely that a court will find Caterers Unlimited did not contract with Kris Hamilton for items deemed as necessaries under Utah’s Legal Capacity of Children statute. The statute states “a minor is bound not only for reasonable value of necessaries but also by his contracts, unless he disaffirms them.” Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-2 (1953). The Utah court further explains this legislation in Harvey v. Hadfield, where the court specifically recognizes “the justice and propriety of refusing to enforce contracts against minors, except for necessities” and reaffirms that the purpose of the 15-2 statute is to protect minors from imprudent acts until they “have the maturity of judgment necessary to deal with opposing parties on equal terms so that it is fair and equitable to bind them by their acts.” Harvey v. Hadfield, 13 Utah 2d 258, 372 P.2d 985 (1962). Although the Utah courts have failed to explicitly define the term “necessaries,” authority from the Arizona Court of Appeals in the Valencia v. White case determined that necessaries constitute items such as food, clothing, housing, and other basic requirements to sustain life Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 654 P.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1982). It should be noted that the Arizona court did not created a strict test to determine necessaries, instead choosing to determine each case on a “factual and reasonable basis.”

In an ABC news article posted on August 27th this year a Division Chief by the name Harvey Cornwell was charged with 1st and 2nd degree assault on his wife. Mr. Cornwell works for the Anne Arundel County Fire Department and is the Division Chief of the operations bureau for the Northern and Western battalions. As the article reads, both Division Chief Cornwell and his wife was in an argument in their home when the alleged assault occurred. The report says weapons were confiscated from the home but none were used in the assault. The findings that led to Mr. Cornwell’s arrest was hand marks on his wife’s neck. This is a prime example of the responsibility we firefighters and fire officers carry on and off the job. . Most departments and municipalities

On October 16, we had an interview with Verda Colvin, who is a Superior Court Judge in the Macon Judicial Circuit which serves Macon Bibb, Crawford and Peach Counties. She was appointed by Governor Nathan Deal on April 16, 2014. She is the first African American female appointed to the Macon Judicial Circuit.

How a Texas court would rule on this argument is unclear. The TDI states on its website that a non-participating provider is not entitled to prompt pay penalties, even if the claim is paid more than 30 days after submission. Although the court in Emerus explicitly rejected the TDI’s position, a Texas court could give it more credence. Texas courts apply deference to agency interpretations of law; however, such deference is generally reserved for official agency action, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, not remarks on the agency’s website. See Railroad Commission of Texas v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619, 624-25 (Tex. 2011) (giving deference to Railroad Commission’s interpretation of the phrase “public interest” as manifested in a final order following a formal adjudication); see also Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of New York Mellon, 914 F. Supp. 21d 422, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (holding that statements posted to Securities Exchange Commission’s website were not entitled to deference). Additionally,

MARSHALL, Texas – The Ladies came back from a two-set deficit, but the Maroon and White could not recover from a strong start in the deciding set by the Tigers as Centenary (2-3) fell to East Texas Baptist (4-1) 25-23, 25-22, 22-25, 25-27, 15-7 Tuesday night, September 5.

Sonia Sotomayer: Florida was violating the 6th amendment in sentencing people to death. Although, with each state having different rules about the death penalty, the majority supreme court decision was that Florida was acting in unconstitutional ways and that both a jury and a judge should have the final say in whether or not to send people to death.

In the article “The Hippocratic Oath of the Manger: Good or Bad Idea? ” Sean Jasso suggests that a manager is not necessary requires a professional license to practice management neither takes oaths. However, he believes that it is normal for medical doctors, lawyers, and CPAs to take the oath. The idea about whether the Hippocratic oath of manager is good or bad still stay controversial because some believe that having a professional license to practice management will minimize the failure in business. On the other side, some believes that as long as manager produce effective result within the rule of law then oath is irrelevant or not helpful. For example, Harvard Business School Scholars takes the “MBA Oath”, which was inspired by the professor Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria. The example of Harvard School of Business shows readers that the business crisis could be prevent or improve by turning management to a profession like law and medicine because these professions have to take oath: not to do harm to the society and people. Although Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria’s ideas of “MBA Oath” is noble, Jasso believes that it is not realistic in our society.

There are stories around the world about corruption and unethical leadership; these stories often make headlines in newspapers, magazines, and televised news programming. There is an abundance of immorality in the workplace; at the scale is at, it should be considered a plague. It runs rampant in all forms of business, in white collar crime and blue collar crime. White collar crime itself is the practice and history of unethical and inauthentic leadership in the professional world. Thus, while the direct and superficial focus is authentic leadership and behavioral integrity, the