The Liability Case : John Doe V. Bennett

Lo Surdo, A. (2008) The latest word from the High Court on vicarious liability, LAW SOCIETY JOURNAL, September 45 (8), pp.64-65.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

MILLERSBURG — A local man who admittedly filmed coworkers using an employee bathroom now faces the potential of local jail time.

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

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

accounts of sexual abuse,But all the evidence of the case is pointing otherwise. Such as the

Thesis statement: This case of the Shermans v. Church of the Divine Light. According the case, the Shermans claim that their minor child has been the victim of illegal detention and intentional infliction of emotional distress and among other torts. They seek to be compensated for all the damages that such detention have brought to their minor child as well as the medical and other expenses they incurred in getting him away from the church and “bringing him” from their intentional “brainwashing” of their minor child.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

Murphy was on probation after been found guilty of a sex related charge that took place in 1980. Murphy was obligated by the court to enroll in treatment and be honest with his probation officer when they do conduct their scheduled meetings once a month. When Murphy’s probation officer ask him questions Murphy revealed of his past act of rape and murder, that took place in 1974. The offender Murphy claims that his 5th amendment, which allows a person to not incriminate oneself, was violated when his probation officer asked Murphy a series of questions.

Facts: John Doe was arrested in Marion County in 2000 and convicted of two counts of child exploitation. A recent Indiana statute prohibits most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites, instant messaging services, and chat programs. He was released from prison in 2003 and was required to register as a sex offender under this Indiana law. John Doe, on behalf of a class of similarly situated sex offenders, challenges this law on First Amendment grounds and files suit against Marion County. The district court held that the law implicates Doe's

It is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege that they exist; he must set forth facts that, if true, would suffice to demonstrate that they exist.” Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175. In this case, the Parents have failed to allege facts that satisfy any of the aforementioned elements. Indeed, the Parents’ complaint fails to state facts sufficient to show that: 1) Cardenas acted intentionally or recklessly; 2) the Cardenas engaged in extreme or outrageous conduct; 3) that the Parents suffered any severe emotional response; and 4) that there was a causal connection between Cardenas’s conduct any emotional harm suffered by the Parents. As such, the Parents have failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for IIED. Therefore, the Defendants respectfully pray that this Court grant its motion to dismiss the Parents’ claim for

The reporting party (RP) disclosed that Taylor Trusheim DOB: 4/3/99 was brought into Sutter/Yuba Behavioral Health for a Triage appointment to assess for possible services. Prior to the appointment Taylor's mother La Vonne Bettencourt received a call from a family member who brought up an incident which occurred when she was 4 years old. The family member mentioned an incident where the child was molested by the daycare provider's husband Bret Baker. Subsequently the mother discussed the information with Taylor who confirmed the molestation. The confirmation alarmed the mother who recalled the last day the child was at the daycare. On that day after pick up 4 year old Taylor, the mother felt uneasy regarding an incident which occurred. According

Regarding Laura Norberg V. Morris Wynrib, two major points are brought up. Firstly, she was sexually assaulted by her doctor, which falls beneath the tort of battery. Secondly, the notion of ‘’fiduciary obligation’’ is questioned, due to a disagreement of whether or not the relationship between Norberg and Wynrib was considered fiduciary. The court of appeal terminated the case based on the fact that she consented, so the case found it’s way into the Supreme Court. After Norberg was found guilty under the Narcotic Control Act, she actively chose to enter a rehabilitation center, upon being released, she sued the doctor who exploited her vulnerability.

Currently in the United States there are no federal laws relating to sexual assault. This is due to the court ruling of US v. Morrison which overturned the clauses in the Violence Against Women Act which allowed women to sue their attackers in a Federal court. The Supreme Court justified overturning these articles in the VAWA by saying that allowing women to sue in Federal court whether there was a conviction or not was an over reach on the part of the Federal government and the commerce clause. By doing this the Supreme Court limited the commerce clause in order to overturn the articles, which was one of the first time that the commerce clause had been limited since its