Standing To Sue: Case Study

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.

The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: Personal jurisdiction which allows courts to have jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Specific to corporations, personal jurisdiction only applies in the state in which the company does business, is incorporated and has it principle office. In Margolin’s suit, personal jurisdiction would not apply because although the company does business in the state of New York, both Novelty Now and Funny Faces are not incorporated or have principle offices in this state.

The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court]

Plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims he was trying to enter his apartment building when was stopped by Det. Selwyn Fonrose and ordered to get on the floor. Plaintiff states Det. Fonrose forcibly put him on the ground and hit with a police radio. Plaintiff states he was arrested and taken to the precinct, then the hospital where he received staples to his head.

In 2012, Marissa Alexander went to trial for firing a warning shot against her abusive boyfriend. A year later, George Zimmerman went to trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Both Alexander and Zimmerman violated the “Stand Your Ground” law and they both were prosecuted by Angela Corey. Although Alexander did not kill anyone, she was found guilty and served three of her sixty-year sentence, while Zimmerman walked free. Was there racial discrimination in the ruling of these cases? It can be determined that race played a role in the ruling of these cases.

The Alva family enrolled their son, Sergio, at Paradise Cove, a behavioral modification program for troubled youth which was operated by the Defendants. The Alvas then initiated a suit against Teen Help Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs, R & B Billing, Dixie Contract Services, Robert Lichfield, Karr Fransworth, and Brent Facer, alleging a number of tort claims which arose from the enrollment of their child. This initial suit was made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on February 25, 2000. On August 5, 2003 the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted after hearing arguments regarding the motion on December 16, 2003. The motion for summary judgment was granted and filed on December 17, 2003. The Plaintiffs then did not file their notice of appeal until January 17, 2004, which was after the deadline to file such notice. The court then required the Plaintiffs to show reason as to why the appeal should be honored even though it was late.

Identified in “General Business Organizations” and has been a successful group in Texas since 1994 is the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR). Business leaders formed this group and were determined to change what they perceived as “Texas’ Wild West Litigation Environment” by changing the state’s tort laws. Torts are wrongful acts; in the Texans for Lawsuit Reform, taking away the right of a citizen who loses in a civil lawsuit can be forced to pay an extra amount as punishment. The Texans for Lawsuit reform is a volunteered-led organization that “seeks to create a civil justice system that discourages non-meritorious lawsuits or outrageous claims for damages” (votesmart.org). TLRPAC, which stands for Texans for Lawsuit Reform Political Action Committee

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

What is legal standing and does Sierra Club has the standing to file a challenge? “Standing is a constitutional principle

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence

The Supreme Court laid out the contours of modern constitutional standing doctrine in 1992 in the Lujan V. defenders of wildlife case. To have a justiciable case or controversy under Article III, a plaintiff must have, among other things,

For the mock trial I was assigned to be one of the prosecuting attorneys. After being presented with case materials which included facts of the case, statements from both prosecuting and defense witnesses, penal code for the alleged charges, and map of the crime scene, we as a group decided to create one Google Drive document. There we would upload our parts of the case and help other group members with their assignments.

The courts ruled that the plaintiff had not right to use such coercive methods when competing for business and the liability was clear in this circumstance. The defendant was awarded $1250.00 by the plaintiff for compensatory damages and $4000.00 was awarded by the association for exemplary damages. Plaintiff attempted to appeal stating the awarded amount was excessive; the courts ruled that the amount awarded was not excessive and denied the appeal from the plaintiff. No dissenting opinion was made.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?