Mark Gable Thesis Statement

During juvenile court proceedings, three teenage boys admit to sexually assaulting Audrie and possessing photos of the assault--both felonies. As a result, two of the boys are sentenced to thirty days in juvenile detention to be served on weekends, and the other receives a sentence to serve forty-five consecutive days in juvenile detention. Because the assailants are considered minors at the time of the crime, they are not publicly identified, and their convictions remain concealed.

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

On Sunday 26 June 1994 9:30am, the Appellant attended a breakfast at the Respondent’s premises. She commenced drinking champagne and wine, which were both supplied by the Respondent and by her friends. At 12:30pm she purchased a bottle from the Respondent, and continued to drink more alcohol. At 2:20pm, the Appellant’s friend was leaving and the Appellant decided to stay longer with her new friends. At 3:00pm, the Appellant attempted to buy more alcohol, but the Respondent refused to supply it to her. By 5:30pm, due to her disruptive behaviour

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

It is likely that Ms. Gonzales will be found liable for Mr. Sutton’s injuries under the Dram Shop Act as the evidence shows both that Mr. Sutton had been “obviously intoxicated”, in a readily apparent manner, when he was served alcohol at Ms. Gonzales’s art show, and also because Mr. Sutton’s intoxicated state had been the proximate cause of his injuries. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 2.02 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through the 2015 regular session, 84th Legislature). There are two elements, within the Texas Dram Shop Act, that must be met in order for a provider to be liable for a patron’s injuries. The first element that must be met is that the patron had been served alcohol, even though “at the time the provision occurred it was

Mr. Wayne Beatty, the plaintiff brought a claim against his former employer Canadian Mill Services Association (CMSA), the defendant is suing for wrongful dismissal and contending he is eligible for increased damages due to the way the dismissal was handled. The damages include an additional 13 months’ notice and for the loss of a number of fringe benefits.

Explanation of deadly accident, Mr. Burch the plaintiff’s husband on 13th November 1998, he was on that way to cross the floodway as it was regular banking day for him. But Mr Burch died while he tried to cross the floodway in his car which slide off while he attempt trying to cross the culvert.

of the incident is currently being tested for substances that may have contributed to his poor

Paul Haring was pulled over for fleeing from the scene of an accident. Upon contact it was found he and his passenger, a minor named Colin Morgan, were both under the influence of alcohol. Colin was cited for MIP and taken home by his parents. Haring, after failing multiple dexterity tests and blowing a BAC of 0.11 in a PBT, was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an

Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, minors, by their father and next friend, Leonard Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, minor, by his father and next friend, William Eckhardt v. The Des Moines Independent Community School District, et al. 393 U.S. 503 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222

At the young age of 18, Dwayne Allen Dail falsely convicted of a rape, crime and several other charges were put against him. First, Dail was convicted of a rape crime against Barbara Best’s daughter (Mumma). This shows that the charges were already placed against him. Next, he was also convicted of burglary for breaking into the apartment in which crime had happened at (Mumma). This shows that Dail was being suspected of breaking into the apartment, and stealing from the apartment. Finally, Dail had been convicted with two life terms (Mumma). This shows that if Dail wasn’t found innocent later he would have had to serve the rest of his life in federal prison. The conviction trial between Dwayne Allen Dail and Christopher Abernathy were very similar in many ways.

Gregory B. CLARK, a minor By and Through his next best friend, guardian ad litem and natural guardian, Douglas H. CLARK, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARIZONA INTERSCHOLASTIC ASSOCIATION, an Arizona corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees, (1982) 695 F.2d ( ninth Cir.)

The main issue of this case is to determine if Tricontinental may recover from PwC for negligence. In order to show negligence there must be four requirements that the plaintiff must show. The four requirements are: the defendant owed a duty of care, defendant breached that duty, breach of duty to care caused the plaintiff’s injury, and fourth that damages resulted.

This paper is being submitted August 11, 2013 for Professor Sheryl Prichard’s Criminal Law and Procedure course at Devry University by Jonah Colombo.