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
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.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club was vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out
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.
195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Pearl, 89 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Utah 2000).