The case of Slaughter v. Coffing indicates that there needs to be an argument proving that malpractice was the proximate cause of damages. Slaughter v. Coffing, No.68911, 2017 WL 462250, at *3 (Nev. App. Jan. 24, 2017). RA: It seems that the most obvious reason Joyce did not get child support was due to Brenner’s failure to demand it during the divorce proceedings. His lack of prudence and diligence directly caused Joyce to lose out on support she would have benefitted from.
One specific implication which stems out from jus in bello is the conduct by soldiers at individual and tactical level. Occurrence of various war zone scandals have shown that the conduct by individual soldier not only influence the success of immediate task, but may impede the completion of overall theatre mission. The scale, complexity and scope of military operations in recent years has thus created new moral dilemmas. It has been argued by some scholars that with the alteration of nature of operations to include aspects “other than war”, the requirement of “ethical sophistication” will be more profound. Despite various programmes conducted by militaries around the globe for development of ethical standards, scandals involving unethical behaviours by the soldiers has raised the questions of moral conduct reminiscent of those raised during past war atrocities (e.g., the My Lai massacre in Vietnam).
In May 2002, Andersen was prosecuted for obstruction of justice based on two main reasons. First, David Duncan, a former Andersen partner in charge of the Enron audit, destructed related documents to keep them out of the investigation. Second, Nancy Temple, an in-house attorney for Andersen, suggested the management to pay attention to the document retention policy. The jury convicted Andersen and believed David Duncan was corruptly persuaded to impede the integrity of the justice proceedings. In 2005, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Andersen based on flawed jury instructions.
The book and interview both used different yet similar techniques to make the argument strong; however the reasons and evidence in each case can help to build a sturdier foundation for the other source. I am going mainly focus the different aspects of the two sources that create trust and credibility and how through this reliability build up enhance the logical argument. These two methods work together to make the audience convinced of Ravitch’s claim. The interview done on Diane Ravitch by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, focused on the book The Death and Life of the Great American School System. Stewart questioned Ravitch the reasons why she believe that “standardized testing and choice are undermining education”.
13 May, 2009 - European Union fines Intel Corporation a record €1.06bn fine for violating Competition Law. EU Antitrust Commission imposes fine for violating European Community Treaty antitrust rules by an abuse of dominant position through illegal practices, excluding competitors from a market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs) (1). Intel Corp. refused playing guilty and asked judges to overturn the antitrust fine, arguing that EU failed to use mitigating evidence and “capture dynamics of competition”, according to Nicholas Green, lawyer of Intel. The purpose of this research is to identify and discuss the basis for the concerns and intervention of the regulator, in this case – European Union Antitrust Commission. Furthermore, the nature and effectiveness of the fines imposed will be evaluated.
WASHINGTON (CNN/Money) - The government hammered away at Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates in court Tuesday, attempting to portray him as an unreliable witness. And at one point Gates offered to alter his sworn testimony, landing a solid blow against Microsoft's position. The courts have found that Microsoft violated antitrust laws. The current hearings, under U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, will decide what restrictions will be imposed on Microsoft as a remedy for that illegal behavior. Gates has repeatedly complained that the remedies under consideration would be technically impossible to comply with or would force Microsoft to withdraw its Windows operating system from the market and force widespread layoffs at the company.
She was really against the Standard Oil Company because of the appalling outcomes that impacted her own personal life and family. Ida Tarbell would have bias because of these reasons. 8. Is the creator a reliab... ... middle of paper ... ... or reporting a message) The document was created to remind the US Industrial Commission to honestly and properly execute laws. 10. Who was the intended audience for the document?
Arguably, an absurd result was achieved in Fisher v Bell (the flick-knives case) and in L&NER v Berriman, where a railway worker’s widow was denied compensation on a technicality. However, this line of reasoning has essentially fallen into disrepute and the courts will go to great lengths not to achieve absurd results. The modern approach is to discern the intention or purpose of Parliament - known as the purposive approach - and the courts will go to great lengths to construe a statute in line with the supposed intention. That said, the starting point to interpretation is that judges should, in the words of Lord Reid, ‘look at the natural and ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute’ in interpreting same (Pinner v Everett). Further, in line with the purposive approach, words in an Act may be added or omitted to give effect to the intentions of Parliament.
It is argued by Peaceright activist Rabinder (2002) Singh QC and Janet Kentridge (2002) that ‘Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 29 UN security Council resolutions would not justify the use of force’ (Shiner.P, AND Williams. A, 2008, p.21). They argued that US is using old resolution to pursue... ... middle of paper ... ...ve to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons since the elimination of the programme in 1990’ (White. D. N, 2009, p. 48). Therefore, it can be argued that intervention on the basis of WMD is not justified and there were no weapons..
All authors presented in this literature review have made it somewhat clear that President Kennedy is ultimately to blame even though through the research it appear he was not told the whole truth behind the operation. President Kennedy at the time played a crucial if not the most important role in the invasion and failed to protect those who were fighting for their country through false promises. What is not so clear is why? All authors neglected to go into any great details answering this question. Surprisingly it was just touched on and their need to be further research done in order to get the answer to this question.