In a memo from Helia Hull dated September 20, 2016, the details of the incident involve an inadvertent disclosure of privileged attorney-client documents submitted for discovery by Rosen & Quinn of Chicago, council for defendant in Whelan v. Speedy Motors, Inc. The suit arose as a product liability case from the alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Whelan when the accelerator pedal installed in a Wondercart manufactured by Speedy, failed to function properly. On behalf of Speedy our office was retained for the purpose of performing certain aspects of discovery that later proved to be the result of the inadvertent disclosure. In April our office agreed to allow Ms. Whelan’s attorney, Cyrus Beene, of the Langston & North Law Firm, to examine the
The facts surrounding this case were obtained from both Reilly, and Zisko. It should be noted that Reilly failed to explain in his complaint how he was connected to the probate matter for which Zisko subpoenaed his employment records. The underlying matter that this complaint is related to is the “post-divorce case Elaine C. Menice vs. Jeffrey L. Menice, Plymouth Probate & Family Court Docket No. PL11D2044JP.”
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
This paper covers two law cases on copyright infringement. The first one is Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., a case in which Nike was accused of infringing the copyright of a photo by creating a similar photo and logo. The focus is on how the court determines the breadth of copyright protection and the assessment of substantial similarity. The second case is Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., a case in which Google was accused of infringing the copyright of Java codes. The highlights are the discussion on copyrightability and fair-use defense. The paper ends with some concluding remarks on the dilemma courts face when seeking a balance between copyright protection and freedom of creation / industrial development.
The petitioner Harris suede Forklift Systems, Inc and claiming the conduct of sexual harassment from the Forklift's president which create " abusive work environment."
As of May 30th 2017, the Supreme Court has settled the case BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell in an 8:1 decision, ruling that a state level court cannot implement jurisdiction over a railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
). Black alleges four instances of offensive conduct by a supervisor. The time period in which this conduct occurred is unknown from the facts presented. However, Black alleged that shortly after she became an employee the comment about her tight jeans from John to Joan was made. Three additional instances could be seen as frequent if a time frame of employment was known; however, a low frequency can still be relevant if the discriminatory conduct is severe, as would be a high frequency with low severity. For example, in Harris v. Forklift, the actions of Hardy, Harris’ supervisor, were determined to be frequent, but not severe as he “often insulted her… and made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.
Upon being hired, she signed an agreement stated that she would not disclose any information she gained from working at Greene in the researched and development department. When Ms. Lawson was terminated, she purposely reached out to Howell, Greene’s competitor, knowing that she had information on how to produce Ever-Gold. She is guilty of breaching her contract with Greene’s Jewelry and also violating New Hampshire Trade Secret Law.
The defense in this case will argue that the government was required to acquire a valid search warrant before obtaining their personal business records pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government will argue that they did not violate any of the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining the defendant’s business records without a search warrant because the business records gathered was not protected under the Constitution.
Kain did not disclose details of the alleged assault by Miss Pearce. Miss Pearce did, however, give consent for a child protection medical to be completed but refused to allow him to be accommodated. A child protection medical was undertaken. Kain had scratches on his head and the explanation that Miss Pearce gave was that the cat had scratched Kain’s head. A Police Protection Order was issued and Kain was placed in foster
Baker v. Carr (1962) set historical precedent when the Supreme Court decided that they had the right to review redistribution issues, thereby granting such cases justiciability. This comes after the Court had refused to intervene in appointment cases in Colegrove v. Green (1946) under the rationale that Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution allowed only Congress to do so.
Bags and purses in schools have changed from being the schools property to personal property, because of one case. The New Jersey v. T.L.O court case gave a student a way to change privacy for students nationally. Even though in some situations the use of bags are turned into the institution belongings. It started with one flame in a foul school restroom with 2 negligent girls , both eager for a whiff of smoke. The teen had made the situation escalade by lying about even smoking the cigarette, which the school had curiosity about. Only the case didn't slide through the courts with ease there were many setbacks and misconceptions. The light of the case came from the existence of the fourth amendment dealing with personal privacy and reasonable
Facts: The plaintiff and her husband were part of a religious sect that had origins in Syria, but decided to return to the United States by boat. The defendant, who was the leader of the religious sect, made an agreement with the plaintiff to take her and her husband back to the U.S. on a yacht. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not allow her to leave the yacht when it had reached the port in the U.S. by denying her a boat to reach the shore.
If we assume the verein is treated as a single law firm, there is a conflict arising out of the representation of Laser’s Edge and current client Gump. First, based on the facts, I am going to assume that verein member MPG is representing Laser’s Edge in the patent litigation against Gump. With this in mind, we have to determine whether our relationship with Gump has terminated after our last representation of the organization three months ago. Our problem here is that there was no express termination of our attorney-client relationship with Gump and the length of time and number of issues our firm has represented Gump indicate that our relationship is ongoing.
The Supreme Court established Weingarten Rights in 1975 because of National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc., which was a supermarket company. Weingarten Rights include the right for employees to have a representative, of their choice, present at meetings that may result in disciplinary action against the employees. In other words, Weingarten Rights guarantee an employee the right to Union representation during an investigatory interview. The Supreme Court ruled that there be three rules in place during an investigatory interview. The rules are as followed: