More handpicked essays just for you.
Being an effective student essay
How to be an effective student essay
How can a student achieve a good essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Sabine Dupont is the Plaintiff and believes Ronald Witherspoon the Defendant created false statements against her for the sole purpose of her leaving his company to start her own company. The Plaintiff believes the Defendant purposefully did this to discredit her reputation. Whether the allegations made by the Defendant or not are true, the Plaintiff’s image and business have suffered a great amount, even after the Plaintiff made the Defendant aware that her intention was not to compete with his business. As proof there exists fliers of both businesses, and as shown the Plaintiffs flyer shows no sign of intended competition. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was very friendly and close. The Defendant believes the Plaintiff has misjudged what has occurred to her for the past few months, as retaliation from his part. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for four years and within that time there were no issues, until the Plaintiff’s work plans changed. Of course, the most important evidence of all is the letter by Delilah Simpson a client of Mr. Witherspoons, where she informs us of his ill-informed communication with her about Ms. Dupont.
My Verdict
…show more content…
The Plaintiff did not give any consent to the Defendant allowing him to show this information. The language used by the Defendant was harmful, without first stating that this is only his opinion, he spoke to discredit the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's reputation was damaged by the Defendant's disclosure of information, obviously being able to prove that by the loss of her clientele. Also in regards to the statement on HIV, that would fall under slander per se, in which case, malice on the part of the Defendant does not need to be established. The Defendant knew what he was doing and what it would cause if he released this information. The Defendant is
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
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.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
In order for John to file a discrimination complaint against his employer, he is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint counselor or representative of the company. Once the charge has been filed, an investigation is made, or the charge maybe selected to an EEOC program and maybe dismissed. In this case, John is given a certain number of days to file a lawsuit on his behalf. This process would have to go through several lengthy stages such as the EEOC administrative process. If gone to trial it must go through filing of a summons, response and answer, discovery process, enlisting of experts, pre-trial, actual trial and a possible appeal.
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
Carlill the plaintiff who is the party filling the case went against the defendants who was carbolic smokeball Company due to a breach of contract.
...publication was merely reporting and comment based from the witness’ testimony and not his personal opinion. Nevertheless, if it is that the accused is suppressed of a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity, then the case may be dismissed and if the accused was guilty, he could walk free.