Martin A. Foos's Case

Drew A. Senulis is an Associate Attorney with Patel Gaines. He represents clients in a broad range of complex commercial real estate litigation and transactions. Drew emphasizes that though a great number of business people may understand their industry and business procedures, some may not be wholly aware of the legal nuances that can influence their business. He also understands that a vast amount of attorneys remain inexperienced with business operations – making them less effective advocates. Drew’s focus is to close that gap for his clients by successfully combining his strong foundation of legal expertise and business experience.

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

The city of Atlanta had experienced over a two year period from 1979-1981 of egregious acts of murders committed on more than twenty African American adolescent males. However, Wayne Williams, a native of Atlanta, was the center of law enforcement investigation, which implicated his involvement in at least two of the children murders around that time. Nonetheless, law enforcement linked Wayne Williams to those murders because of detailed evidence found on the victims, which was later discovered that evidence was from Williams apartment (Curriden, 1992). Furthermore, the evidence which was found was a unique fiber from the carpet of Williams apartment and the number of people having this fiber was very small in number (Curriden, 1992)). The fiber evidence was the main part of the case to associate Williams with

Gibbons V. Ogden, is believed to be a turning point to the supreme court case about the topic of the interstate commerce clause. Ogden, received an special license, that allowed him to utilize a shipping industry, in the state of New York. Thomas Gibbons was the man, that he sued, because he suspected that Ogden business was unlawful. Gibbons, was then considered to run his position by congress.

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.

Levy introduced me to is contractual law. Mr. Levy allowed me to assist on insurance cases, which included observing meetings, summarizing depositions, and reviewing contracts. Even though I had experience reviewing contracts while working a couple of summers for a General Counsel at a large business, this was completely different because these agreements were among insurance companies and individuals, instead of insurance companies and businesses. Mr. Levy works on behalf of insurance companies, mostly State Farm, when they have disputes with their clients over wind and hail coverage. These cases are interesting because Mr. Levy has to not only deal with the individuals that are claiming the insurance company didn’t follow the contract, but he also must deal with the adjuster in each case. Mr. Levy gave me the responsibility of summarizing the depositions of the adjusters to confirm that none of them said anything that was contradictory or detrimental to State Farm’s case. Often these cases end with settlements or dismissals because either the insurance company decides to compensate the individuals or the attorney representing the insurance company gets a favorable summary judgment. Mr. Levy and other attorneys representing insurance companies frequently seek summary judgments when the plaintiffs don’t have significant evidence to prove that the insurance companies violated the contract. In most of the insurance cases that I assisted Mr. Levy on he was able to receive summary judgment because the plaintiffs didn’t have enough evidence to prove that State Farm was responsible for paying the

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case is one of the most important cases that have ever been tried in the United States of America and was heard in the Old Courthouse of St. Louis.   This case that is usually known as the Dred Scott Decision was a ruling by the Supreme Court of America that African people imported into the country and detained as slaves were not protected by the U.S Constitution and could never be American citizens.

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what comes to mind when we are in court or thinking about the constitution. That was not the case in the Dred Scott V. Sanford decision because Dred Scott was African American and a slave suing for his freedom. Dred Scott was an early, persistent steadfast, fighter for African American civil rights. “The Dred Scott decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Dred Scott forced the Supreme Court to fully articulate its stance on slavery; the results of which had long standing effects. His case in the Supreme Court brought heated opinions from both the North and the South regarding states’ rights and slave rights. Both sides had a huge debate both regarding the issue using very valid arguments towards the Dred Scott case.

Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building owned by his landlord, Mr. Quinn, where he has been working on an invention that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store has contacted Mr. Stevens, and would like to sell his product exclusively. Despite the fact that Mr. Stevens and the store never signed a physical contract, he verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units. Now, the chain store has just contacted Mr. Stevens via letter, demanding that he deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately (Southern New Hampshire University, n.d.).

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

Jurisdiction played a key role in the outcome of the lawsuit in A Civil Action. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, filed the original complaint against W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods in state court. Schlichtmann, a personal injury attorney, spends most of his time there; personal injury is heard much less frequently in federal court. William Cheeseman, the attorney for W. R. Grace, almost immediately removes the case to federal court since W. R. Grace’s headquarters is in New York and the amount in question is clearly over

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.

     The legal system is an essential element in the successful operation of this country. It is a system that is utilized every day, by every type of person, from the average blue-collar worker to the average Wall Street broker. There is a multitude of ways that the legal system is put to use. One such way is the class action lawsuit. A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, uses the account of a single case, Anne Anderson, et al., v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al, to illustrate the power and importance of class action lawsuits in the civil justice system.

My externship at the AG Office exposed me to the interworking’s of a government agency. As an employee of the state every detail is particularly scrutinized and it is of the utmost importance that quality work be exhibited. At the AG Office I continued to impress my supervisors with my diligence, impressive legal research, writing skills, and through drafting legal memorandums and motions in limine. Moreover, I quickly adapted and learned about specific duties entailed upon me as a legal extern, and executed those duties, which included assisting attorneys with discovery proceedings, jury instructions, and any matters arising from preparation of jury trials.