As indicated by the scenario it seems that the decision problem is a matter if the accounting systems annual conference that is previously scheduled to occur on September 13-16,2005 should be canceled, due to the fact Hurricane Katrina has occurred and demolished building and homes leaving them in ruin in the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. The primary issue thus becomes does the board or committee moves the conference to a future date or have conference at another location that would thus incur higher costs for hotel for patrons of the conference in addition to it would be a price increase for flights that were already scheduled to New
4- The committee and Ms Beckel decided to include a religious studies curriculum in the program. The principal approved of it. However, Ms Wright one of the community members did not. She threatened to show up at the committee meeting with the media. On the day of the meeting, Ms Wright showed up with a placard protesting the use of the bible in public schools.
As a group, team A collectively provided input and decisions on our MSRP in order to increase sales and attempt to gain market shares. Thus we wanted to understand the price sensitivity of the different target markets to set the appropriate price (Winer & Dhar, 2016, p. 248). We carefully reviewed the MSRP performance summary provided, starting with the first period, comparing it to the average retail price by way of the channel report (ARPCR). The original price for Allround was $5.29. At that time we were $.40 higher in price than our competition however the team felt that with the $.50 coupon discount we were offering, we would fall in line with other over-the-counter Besthelp who was our immediate
Procedural: The United States and Georgia Constitutions allow the Georgia Department of Corrections to compel incarcerated felons to submit saliva samples for DNA profiling, pursuant with O.C.G.A. section 24-4-60. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the search and seizure provisions of the Georgia Constitution, or the felon’s rights to privacy under the United States or Georgia Constitutions, and was affirmed.
Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.
According to CCP §437c, if there is a single issue of material fact, a motion (for summary judgment) must be denied. Tommy did provide sufficient material facts to allow a jury to find in his favor. Specifically by relaying the facts that Peter Plaintiff’s collision with Jack was too remote for liability to be put on Tommy and that Tommy did not knowingly furnish alcohol to Jack, demonstrating that there was not a prima facie violation of Cal. Civil Code §1714.3 Therefore, the court erred in granting Peter Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and this court must reverse that wrong.
CM spoke to Sergio Paredes, CMO Court Liaison regarding an update on Dre’quan (youth) OOH treatment status. CM informed Mr. Paredes that the Clinical Director at Daytop is still reviewing the referral documents and Daytop have not contacted CM regarding an update on youth’s status yet. Mr. Paredes provided CM with Honoria Forte (Youth’s Attorney) for CM to follow-up with attorney regarding this matter.
On September 3, 2013, the Department of Human Services, Office of Program Review, Monitoring and Investigation (OPRMI), Fraud Investigations Division received a hotline compliant alleging that District of Columbia (DC) benefit recipient, Shaniqua Williams (Ms.Williams) was employed by Hoffman Theatre in Alexandria, VA on Eisenhower, and has not reported her income while receiving benefits.
In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the home, even in the advent of new technology. In this case the government believed Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home, agents tsed a thermal imaging device, not readily available to the public, and detected hot areas that were consistent with growing lamps. A judge issued a warrant based on the thermal imaging results, informant information, and utility bills. In a 5-4 decision the Court determined that the government cannot mechanically measure the warmth in a home, with a device that is not in general public use, unless it has probable cause for doing so.
As Star River is a private company and has not issued stock, we need to make several assumptions when calculating market value of equity and price of equity. Analysis of similar companies reveals that Wintronics, Inc. and STOR-Max Corp. are the most similar firms in the market. To calculate Star River’s market value of equity I used market to book value method. I found M/B for Wintronics to be 4.4 (market price per share/book value per share) and 3.9 for STOR-Max. an average M/B ratio is 4.15, so multiplying Star River’s book value of equity of 47004 by 4.15 I found Star River’s market value of equity to be SGD195,066.6M. Average beta of these two companies is 1.615. The global equity market premium is 6%, and I use 10 year Singapore T-bond yield of 3.6% as my risk free rate.
The outcome of this case would have been quite different had Indy given the “Certificate of Origin” to Allen and kept the motorcycle. According to our textbook, “Without an explicit agreement to the contrary, title passes to the buyer at the time and the place the seller performs by delivering the goods [UCC 2–401(2)] (Miller, 2014, p. 308). If the motorcycle remained in Indy’s possession at the time of the seize, then the passage of title would not have occurred because the delivery of the goods had never taken place. This would have made Indy the owner of the motorcycle and not been deemed subject to forfeiture as a proceed of drug trafficking.