Dillon v Legg is an emotional distress claim. The claim is on or about September 27th, 1964: the defendant David Luther Legg was driving his Automobile in a southern direction on Bluegrass Road, close to an intersection called Clover lane in the county of Sacramento. On this date as well the plaintiff Margery M. Dillon’s’ daughter Erin Lee Dillon, who is of young age lawfully crossed Bluegrass Road. The Defendant then hit the plaintiff’s daughter Erin resulting in injuries so severe it resulted in her death. The complaint of the plaintiff also furthered the negligence of the defendant and the operation of the vehicle. The first complaint was: being the mother of the deceased daughter the defendant should be held liable for compensation for her loss. The plaintiffs second course of action was the she claimed to be within enough proximity of the collision to witness the death of her daughter. Her complaint of the incident was emotional suffering due to the negligence of the defendant: the plaintiff witnessed the collision at a proximate distance to sustain an emotional shock and injury to her nervous system which caused physical, and mental pain after her daughter’s death.
The third cause of action includes the plaintiff’s other infant daughter who
…show more content…
Legg differed from the previous law of Amaya v Home Ice, fuel & supply CO. 1963 for the following reasons: The case of Dillion V. Legg does present a mother who claimed emotional distress, but was not within the zone of danger. The sister, however is an acceptance of the previous ruling of Amaya v. Home and was in the zone of danger. The court felt justified to give leeway to right of relief for the sister and not the mother. But the court questioned fair judgement on its own behalf since the mother was only a few yards away from the zone of danger. therefor the concept of the zone danger rule in this case was to be denied by the court and did not rely on authoritative
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
Issue: The appellants are claiming that the court erred in determining that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIA) was not applicable in their claims. Mainly on errors and omissions of medical staff as well as asserted administrative negligence of the hospital that actually occurred before the defendant was admitted at the facility. The appellees’ motion relied on Rose v Garland County Hospital. (Las Colinas Medical Centre)
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
Lantz v. Coleman is a court case that took place in Connecticut in September of 2007. This case focuses on the constitutionality and legality of force-feeding prison inmates who choose to starve themselves. The plaintiff in this case is Teresa C. Lantz, the former commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections. The defendant in this case is sentenced to prisoner and British national, William B. Coleman. Coleman was convicted of sexual assault in a spousal relationship and unlawful restraint in the first degree.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
Wisconsin v. Yoder is the case in which members of an old order Amish family were restricted from removing their children from school after completing the 8th grade. These families argued that the states compulsory educational law violated their right to exercise their religion freely. The Amish lead a simple way of life and higher education is not only deemed unnecessary but also endangers their traditional values. They believe that the values their children will learn at home outweigh the knowledge they will receive at school. The US Supreme Court concluded that the states compulsory education law did violate the Amish peoples right to exercise their religion freely. Wisconsin V. Yoder is a controversial case of a law coming into conflict with a constitutional right. The question whether the US Supreme Court was right in its verdict comprises a multidimensional answer and therefore requires further sub questions. Do religious beliefs trump certain laws? What type of law is it? What are the implications of the US Supreme Courts decision? In this paper I argue that religious accommodation has dire consequences that lead to corruption and inequality, however the US Supreme Court was correct in its decision to accommodate the Amish family due to the inherent flaw with the paternalistic law that the state of Wisconsin was trying to enforce.