Strict scrutiny

healthcare, serves the compelling state interest of public health and welfare. In parallel, this Court found that ensuring that people have coverage by health care providers is a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby correctly applied the test of strict scrutiny, and required that the mandate be the least restrictive means of advancing this compelling government interest. This is where the mandate failed as applied to Hobby Lobby. The Court found the mandate could not be applied to private corporations

Memorandum of Oral Pleading Parties: Mr de Jong (Claimant) and Mini-Coza (Defendant) Date and time: Thursday 4th October 2012, 10:00hrs Judge: Mr. de Vries The Group: Pasi Lindqvist, Daan Bredenbeek, Nick Bruurmijn and Redmer van Berkum Overview of the Facts and the Compensation Sought On the 1st of January 2011 the claimant Mr. de Jong purchased a buggie through a German provider Mini-Coza, who operated in the Netherlands for €275. The buggie was to be used by the claimant’s over-one-year-old

Critical Thinking on Logical Issues Scenario 1 There is a lot of tragedy surrounding WV Steel Company lately. National Construction (our of Colorado) is building a new football stadium. The opt to buy and use cables that were approved by a contractor for WV Steel. After the stadium is built the upper deck collapses and injures and kills civilians watching the game. National is now under a lot of pressure from lawsuits stemming from the incident. To make matters worse Jessica crashes her car on

The Strict Liability Theory Introduction Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability

Reasoning Reasoning (A) This court’s reasoning clarifies the ambiguity and responds to the defendant’s appeal regarding the application of “learned intermediary” into 3 sections. 1. Defining “Learned Intermediary” and what it means to the case in South Dakota Law. 2. How this applies to the deceit claim 3. How this applies to the failure to warn claim Learned Intermediary doctrine places the responsibility on the manufacturer to clearly warn physicians of the risks of their product. In this case

Doctrine of vicarious liability The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within the law of torts. It has become well-established in English law and historically has been called “Master and Servant liability,” which clearly indicates the circumstances in which the doctrine becomes applicable in tort law. The general rule in tort law is that a person who authorises a tort will personally be liable for damage or harm as a result. However, vicarious liability defines the circumstances

Senco is liable to Larkin for strict liability because of the defect that SN325 nail gun double fired causing Larkin’s injuries. Even though Larkin did not purchased the nail gun Seco is still liable to any person how uses the nail gun including bystanders who may become injured due to the malfunction of the product. Seco did not do enough testing and research to realize that the nail gun can potentially double fire causing the nail gun to recoil and causing damages or injury to any person using

Latisha Love BUS 500 August 27, 2017 Dr. Brvenik Assignment 2: The Gig Economy To: Administration and Hiring Managers From: Uber Legal Department Date: 8/24/17 RE: Legal Liability for Drivers’ Conduct There have been several instances of driver misconduct that have resulted in the Uber being held liable. This communication is an attempt to provide clarity to drivers and affiliates as to how misconduct affects the whole team. The main principles of Uber will be discussed as well circumstances

Seminar 7 Vicarious Liability The problem question deals mainly with the issue of Vicarious Liability and Negligence. In order to advise Jerry one would have to explore the rules of vicarious liability, relevant statute law and case law which may apply. Vicarious liability has been defined as the person who commits a wrong must be an employee and not an independent contractor, the employee must have committed a tort and the tort must have been in the course of employment. The doctrine of ‘vicarious

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve? In the case of Branham v. Ford Motor Co., the Plaintiff brought the case against Hale, the driver, and Ford because the company failed to test the seat-belt sleeve, even though he did not "seriously pursue the claim against Hale" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). The case against Ford was based on "two product liability claims: one for not testing the seat