Sherman V. Church of Divine Light (Causes of Action)

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.

This event was a very unfortunate tragedy, although it was used as an opportunity to create a new legal precedent which determines whether or not a child can be convicted for crimes though to be classified as an ‘adult crime’, for example, manslaughter. Doli incapax, assumes that any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.

The articles "Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City" and "Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" both engage in conflicts pertaining to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

When it comes to court cases, every case that is heard in court is heard for one reason or another.

Another Supreme Court case which was very popular when it was being tried, and still is today, is the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. In this case, which was decided on March 18, 1963, a man named Clarence Gideon was denied his sixth amendment right to an attorney. Gideon was arrested in Florida in 1961 for breaking and entering into a pool hall with the intent of committing another crime there. When he asked for an attorney to represent him because he couldn’t afford one, he was denied of his Sixth Amendment right. When asked why, he was told that by Florida State Law, the only time an attorney is appointed to the accused is when a person is charged with a capital offense. Gideon put together a defense as best he could, and represented himself during trial. As can be expected from a man with no law experience, he lost his case and was found guilty. He was sentenced to five years in prison, until he filed a habeas corpus petition; meaning a petition saying he was wrongly imprisoned (pbs.org). When this case went to the Supreme Court, Gideon argued that he was violated of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, regardless of the status of his case. The Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision, the right to an attorney should be given in all criminal prosecutions (oyez.org). This was a huge case for the criminal justice system simply because it allowed for fair representation for everyone. There were no longer people who went to jail simply because of the fact that they

Born September 24, 1755 near Germantown, Virginia and went to the College of William and Mary. He served as an officer in the Continental army during the revolutionary war. He was the Chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 34 years. His Court opinions helped lay the basis for constitutional law. John Marshall married Mary Willis Ambler in 1782. They had 10 children, only six lived to full age. He studied law for only six weeks. In 1799, he served in the U.S. House of representatives for a brief period after being appointed the secretary of state under President John Adams. Marshall presided over ‘the Burr Trial’ of former vice president Aaron Burr who was charged with ‘treason’ and ‘high misdemeanor’. The jury acquitted the defendant,

Will Rob Jr. (technically, his parents will sue the church on his behalf) be able to get this case to trial?

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense, under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon stated, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel”.

Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964) - Any business that was participating in interstate commerce would be required to follow all rules of the federal civil rights legislation. In this case, a motel that wanted to continue segregation was denied because they did business with people from other states. This important case represented an immediate challenge to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark piece of civil rights legislation which represented the first comprehensive act by Congress on civil rights and race relations since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. For much of the 100 years preceding 1964, race relations in the United States had been dominated by segregation, a system of racial separation

Criminal profiling refers to the inference of offender characteristics. Historically, the use of criminal profiling can be traced back to 38 C.E. when Jews were wrongfully accused of blood libel, also known as the kidnapping and murdering the children of Christians for religious rituals during Jewish holidays (Turvey, 2012). As time progressed, criminal profiling has evolved into the study of crime and criminal behaviors, including mental health and physical evidence surrounding a crime that has been committed in an attempt to identify a likely suspect. However, the validity of scientific evidence as a whole was challenged in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 592. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge was the “gatekeeper” to prevent “junk science” from entering the courtroom and outlined standards, also known as Daubert standards, for expert testimony including, testing, peer review, error rates and acceptability (Turvey, 2012).

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

The Senate has passed the Mississippi Church Protection Act which will allow security staff to carry concealed weapons in church and also nullify gun limits.

Gary Bowman, an Oklahoma resident and professing Christian, filed civil action against the University of Arkansas Fayetteville claiming deprivation of rights. Bowman sought declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages due to the University of Arkansas’s restrictions established by the University’s enacted Fayetteville Policies and Procedures 708.0. The policy states a five-day cap for use of university property by non-university personnel and a three-day advance notice application. There for the legal issue questions whether or not the requirements defined by policy 708.0 unconstitutionally vague and were they used to discriminate against Bowman thus violating the rights given to him by the 1st and 14th amendments?

) First and foremost, in order for us to claim for the psychiatric damage that Adam has suffered under tort law, we will have to prove that Adam is either a primary victim or a secondary victim and Adam is suffered from a recognised psychiatric illness, anxiety and stress will generally not sufficient. Primary victims are those who directly involved in the event and secondary victims are those who are suffered a psychiatric illness when someone they know is killed or injured in an accident. A recognised psychiatric condition is defined as a genuine illness or injury, needed medical evidence and has a long term effect. Adam might claim as a primary victim in this case, because a primary victim has to suffer physical injury or at a risk of physical injury and psychiatric injuries. The liability of causing psychiatric injury depends on foreseeability of physical injury, for example, in the case of Page v Smith where Mr Page suffered no physical injury but a recurrence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and became unable to work, Smith is liable as he could reasonably foresee that Mr Page suffer physical injury. Adam could claim as a primary victim if Adam is in the zone of physical danger, I firmly believe that Adam was in the zone of danger at that time because he was seated in the row of the seat immediately behind their children and the risk of physical injury of Adam was also foreseeable, therefore, Adam owed a duty of care in relation to psychiatric damage. Besides, the

The mental anguish that he has had to go through and the pain and suffering that he has had to endure are also grounds for compensatory damages. Chapter 12 also covers punitive damages. These damages are fines that the court may impose on the company or individual in an effort them for the neglect. The company will undoubtedly be sued for negligence.