I am filing this complaint on behalf of my husband and myself. Not due to the decision of the sitting judge, which we honor and will adhere to, but due to the bias and lack of ethics we experienced in Judge Hellenger’s courtroom. As for myself, I was referred to in the third party as if I were not present. This to me was very disrespectful. When he finally addressed me, his actions were rude and belittling. While we had documentation that the plaintiff in the case lied repeatedly, he refused to view the evidence we went to great lengths to compile. As for my husband, the judge sided with his ex-wife, the plaintiff and brutally admonished him. We are both law abiding educated individuals who care very much about his child’s welfare. Yet the
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
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.
...who violated Randy’s rights. With such little evidence from the Plaintiff, and the fact that Caruso is not a medical professional, she was not involved in the making of policies and procedures relating to medical matters. Therefore, Caruso did not act with deliberate indifference and was entitled summary judgment, because Plaintiff Parsons failed to provide sufficient evidence on Caruso.
Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be
Here, there is a fear that Tiller will react to The Sierra Club’s recalcitrant rhetoric in a way that biases her judging. The Court addressed a similar concern in Mayberry v. Pennsylvania. In that case, two defendants orally vilified a presiding judge, who then charged the defendants with criminal contempt. The same judge—the one who accused the defendants of contempt—was also the judge who adjudicated the case that arose from his accusation. The Mayberry Court held that the judge’s presence violated due process, saying, “[a] judge, vilified as was this Pennsylvania judge, necessarily becomes embroiled in a … bitter controversy … [such that he] is [un]likely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” So, the Court held that the Pennsylvania judge must recuse. Admittedly, there is a temptation to apply the same reasoning to Tiller, who has experienced comparable vilification courtesy of The Sierra Club, now a party in her court. But, upon closer examination, there are several outcome-swinging ways that distinguish the instant case from
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. The Warren Courts were the catalyst for change in the areas of discrimination based on factors of faith, race or other categorizations was the catalyst for the evolution of reappointment and voting, established Maranda, and laid the ground work for woman to have the right to make decisions concerning own reproduction rights.
The supreme court justices Ruth Bader, Clarence Thomas and Antoni Scalia are all very intelligent individuals they all had great academic and career success leading them to be given a spot on the court making them some of the most impactful humans in America. They all differ in how they do their job in their views or the way they present themselves to them media.
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
An AI, Portia fighting to have the rights of a human was in court yesterday. Representing her, a very well-known and an experienced Human Rights Lawyer, Kimiko Saunders. The Recovery Program, designed to recycle old AI’s were intent on taking Portia and recycling her but she had other plans. She believes that she is a human and is fighting to have the rights of a human. Beside her in court was a Human Rights Lawyer, Tara (the owner of the AI) and Sam (friend of Tara). The fierce court case lasted for three full days and as the days passed the battle of the opinions kept mounting until it met a conclusion, Judge Ironmonger declared the AI as Human.
The stakeholders in this policy area, based on the amicus briefs filed in the Citizens United case and frequent litigants in other similar cases, include politicians, candidates for political office, political action committees, civil rights organizations, nonprofit and legal organizations, agents of the federal government, and political scientists. The Federal Elections Commission is a particularly typical litigant in this policy area, petitioning in a manner that would likely call for an overturning of the precedent in Citizens United. A number of politicians, both Democratic and Republican, also filed amicus briefs in favor of the appellee, the Federal Election Commission, making it probable that these and other politicians would be in favor of overturning the precedent set in Citizens United. Few politicians
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
The Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger and in Gratz v. Bollinger are two compelling and complex cases. In the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme court favored that race and ethnicity along with other factors are justifiable in the admission process of promoting a diverse and inclusive student body on the premises of state law schools. I agree with the court's decision because minorities only make up a small percentage on college campuses and universities, and that race and ethnicity does play a crucial role in recruiting students of colors from various cultural backgrounds. Students must be trained scholars who know how to interact with people from all walks of life and they must be able to adapt and understand different people in different environments in a given context. The goal is for everyone