Review Tenuto v. Lederle, Safer v. Estate of Pack, and Molloy v. Meier and answer the following questions. Your written response should be between 750 and 1,000 words.
1) Identify at least 4 primary sources and 4 secondary sources of law that the courts in those cases relied upon in making their decisions (a total of at least 8 sources for this question, not 8 sources from each case). Explain the court’s reason for relying on each of these sources.
Tenuto v Lederle
• Eiseman v State of New York, supra, 70 NY2d, at 188 – Primary Source. The New York Supreme Court cites this case as one of binding primary authority to establish a precedent that “under appropriate circumstances common morality, logic and social policy could permit a limited extension
…show more content…
(Tenuto)
Safer v Estate of Pack
• McIntosh v. Milano, 168 N.J. Super. 466, 483-85, 403 A.2d 500 (Law Div. 1979) – Primary Source
This case is used as a primary binding authority to support the extension of duty of care as the court does not recognize a significant difference between harm resulting from contagion and harm arising from genetic information. Not stated but reasonably assumed is the idea that had the plaintiff had access to the genetic information she would have been able to make different choices with regard to her self-maintenance and potentially avoided the risks of premature death as a result of colon cancer.
• Tarasoff v. *626 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 24, 551 P.2d 334, 344 (1976) – Primary
Lester, etal V Percadani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieve October 31, 200 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/conner/01v1182a.pdf
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352; 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).
[49] Justice Frank Murphy’s Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.
In a new Microsoft Word document, describe whether the decisions cited in the case were mandatory or persuasive for the Florida Supreme Court.
III. This case will be cited in the 567th volume of the United States Reports.
105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083
Citation: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 1989
The Curious Confusion Surrounding Escobedo v. Illinois. (1965). The University of CHicago Law Review, 560-580.
In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will discuss facts, main legal issues, majority decisions and reasons for the dissent. This case took place on September 26, 1966 in the court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J wrote the majority decision, while Judge Keating wrote the dissenting decision in the case. I will be applying Natural Law and Legal Realism to the case to argue my position, and ultimately prove that the theory of Natural Law is more applicable to the case.
Bailii.org, (2014). Roche -v- Roche & ors [2009] IESC 82 (15 December 2009). [online] Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2009/S82.html [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Reed, O. Lee, Peter J. Shedd, Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Jere W. Morehead. The Legal and
SEC.2005. “Complaint: SEC v. L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Mark A. Belnick”. 2/16/2005.
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 102 S. Ct. 269, 70 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1981). Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com.libproxy.clemson.edu/scholar_case?case=7188907281892258516&q=widmar+v.+vincent&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41