Teresa Avery's Civil Case Study

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

Rosa Lee Cunningham is a 52 year old African-American single mother of eight, who is a long time heroin addict, and has an extensive criminal record. Of her eight children six of them have followed her in her life of addiction and crime. These crimes include everything from petty theft, to prostitution, to drug trafficking. Rosa Lee has recently showed up at the Howard University Hospital emergency room because her body is trying to shut down due to her heroin addiction, and she has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). The staff in

The defendant reported he was primarily raised by his grandmother in Pleasantville, NJ after his mother passed away when he was 7 years old. His mother's name was Sherry Taylor and his father's name is unknown. He doesn't recall what type of work his mother did. He described his childhood as good, and denied any instances of child abuse and

Mildred Loving was born on July 22, 1939 in Central Point, Virginia. She was African-American and a Native American descent who married a white man named Richard Loving and had three kids. Mildred Loving and her husband were both activists and both defeated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage in 1967. The couple met in high school, started dating, and once Mildred became pregnant at age 18, they decided to get married. The couple were not aloud to get married in their home state, because of the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, so they drove to Washington D.C and got married there. A few weeks later when they returned, two sheriffs showed up at their house and told them they had violated the law of the Virginia Racial Integrity Act. The act prohibited

Sarah’s Law Firm hires Brenda Polk to join the family as associate attorney based in the Shepherd office. She will guide clients through Medicaid and estate planning in a comforting and welcoming atmosphere, making sure clients leave her office confident in their plan.

The question that I am trying to answer is an ethical dilemma and it’s about whether or not Shanna tells the job supervisor about Jen’s past trouble with the law. This question is important because it could affect whether or not Jen gets the job, but also it could affect their friendship. The facts that are present in this case are that Shanna and Jen have been best friends for 3 years, they have relied on one another for help and advice in every aspect of their lives, both girls are excellent students, and Jen has only got in trouble with the law once and since then there has been no further issues. There are several people involved in this case and those people are Jen, Shanna, the job supervisor, and the college itself. Jen interest in

“Real Housewives of New Jersey” star Teresa Giudice will get to spend Christmas with her family because she is set to be freed from prison on Wednesday, her legal counsel said.

What happens when lawyers are uninterested with seeking the truth? In “Basic Lupine Urology,” we see the consequences of this shortsightedness. Both Annie and Colonel Archwood were more concerned with imposing their will on the defendant Todd than they were with the truth. Annie and Archwood resorted to equally underhanded tactics in their attempts to get the trial to go their way—intimidating, badgering, and even mocking witnesses in the hopes of victory. They both believed their actions were entirely justified; what happened in the case was irrelevant when compared to winning. And their actions could be justified, if the truth did come out in their pursuits of glory, but it did not. As mentioned earlier, the true “killer” of the yam was only revealed when Jeff continued working despite getting a guilty verdict—a guilty verdict for a man who coincidentally was not entirely guilty of the crime. In the real world, lawyers can become almost as mired in pettiness as their clients. Entrenched in their perspective, district and defense attorneys can end up—ironically enough—skirting the law, from benign acts such as continuing down dubious lines of questioning when no objection is made, to more malicious acts

Terri Fava is a 46 yrs. Old woman, married with three kids. She is in good health, she has been diagnosis with high blood pressure and GERD. Terri high blood pressure is controlled by medication. Dental history is on good standards, but teeth are sensitive to hot and cold. Terri plaque score started at 75% and decrease to 25% during her visit with the clinic. What was noted during Terri’s appointment heavy tenacious calculus and root exposure. Her interdental papilla slightly inflamed. Terri has a habit of coffee drinking with creamer and sugar, along with having sweet tea and Pepsi. Her caries risk assessment indicated that Terri range from low to moderate. Terri is a good candidate for nutritional counseling because her oral mucosa has

McCann argues that due to such hostile response from the workplace ordinary people would choose to not mobilize the law and leave it to the upper class who essentially are the only benefactors of this social change. In Alicia's case, the hostility she received from her colleagues and the attitude of the senior manager proves that all things work in favor of those who hold a position of power. Galanter's article makes the distinction between the haves and the don't have, which basically summarizes this idea that those who hold a higher status and have the means to make the law work in their favor, tend to enjoy the advantages of society more than lower-class individuals. Pursuing litigation does not necessarily mean that the laws will be respected

In 1967, Bill and Doris Abraham started a small, yet successful grocery store. They both had positive go-get attitudes, and ensuring happy customers was one of their priorities. They had a good reputation, focussing on the good quality meats and produce. 40 years later, Abraham’s had more than 200 stores. To begin with the management was very unstructured, each department having a different manager, and then the store manager not having control at all. This lead to a loss of control over the business and an increase of conflict occurred. The efficiency and effectiveness in managing this business can be improved by starting with a structure that will work. To become more effective, a goal must be put in place, that way the managers/employee’s

From the case, it seems that the two employees compete with each other, and they are jealous of one another. The supervisor, Ann Jones, must intervene because their arguments not only has been affecting their productivity, but also has distressed the whole team. Ann Jones should not avoid the problem and hope that they will get tired and stop fighting at some point.

In the article, the reader is presented two cases of a manager and an employee trying to make the best out of each other. The article starts off with the first case about Whitney McCarthy, and it discusses how she prioritized everything that she would need to do her job efficiently. Whitney’s first priority was getting a clear understanding of what her precise responsibilities were. I agree with this, because it would be inefficient to start working and completely do it wrong. Mistakes happen in the workplace, but if they can be avoided by simply asking questions and reflecting on that information then I would prefer to do that.

While reading the Weston case one thing that I repeatedly thought about was the ethical decision tree. Chris and Alison Weston were not bad people, unfortunately by trying to justify the sacrifices that they believe they had done for their company they both ended up respectively serving 20 and 18 months in prison for mail fraud. Its hard not to rationalize with Chris for what he did, we have all been in positions that we sense upper management is taking us for granted and it's reasonable to feel that we deserve more pay for the sacrifice we are making. However, there has to be a line drawn between what we feel is right and what is ethical.

It is widely accepted that the social interest is stimulated by criminal law. Crime as a public wrong, it affects the society by making them feel less secure. Judgments can be easily misinterpreted with a lack of minor details, which distort the whole view. Particularly, in Kennedy’s case, the conviction of two counts of offences, supplying a class-A drug and a manslaughter, was controversial. This study will first explore, the facts of the case which are essential to identify the law. Moreover, it will investigate the law and analyse the solutions provided by the courts. Furthermore, it will examine the inadequacy of the courts. Finally, it will outline the possible reforms that they should set out in order to clarify inaccuracies in law. This study will substantiate the view that, the final judgment was largely interpretable, although improvements can be calculated, with the benefit of the society as a prime target.