Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on misuse of power
An essay on misuse of power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Discussion Ultra Vires Issues Cueto may have a potential claim that the OER’s interpretation of the enabling act and ensuing actions exceeded the authority delegated to the OER by Congress. The OER’s notice of liability refers to Section (3) of the statute, and requires the OER to provide to Cueto “notice of the factual basis for the finding.” However, Cueto may argue that the OER failed to comply with this provision of their own enabling statute. The OER’s notice simply related to Cueto that their liability was assumed due to Cueto’s ownership of the pipeline. If Cueto was to challenge the notice per Sections (3) and (4) of the statute, it is highly unlikely the OER’s only evidence at the hearing would be Cueto’s ownership of the pipeline. It is reasonable to interpret that the “factual basis” described in the statute for Cueto’s liability that would be required for the OER to prevail at the hearing is the same or similar factual basis the OER must provide to a responsible party upon notice. If simply noting Cueto’s ownership of the …show more content…
Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). Here, the OER has not provided Cueto with the factual basis for their action; however, regardless of the evidence the OER possesses, Cueto is still entitled to adjudication per the enabling statute. Cueto would be unwise to accept the OER’s penalties without demanding the OER present their evidence (or lack thereof) of Cueto’s liability. Additionally, a party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). Even if the OER does present compelling evidence, Cueto has the opportunity during adjudication to potentially disprove or scrutinize the OER’s
In Giglio 's case, the Court found that neither DiPaola 's authority nor his failure to inform his superior Hoey or his associate Golden was controlling. The Court held that, regardless of whether the failure to disclose was intentional or negligent, disclosing the information remained the obligation of the prosecutor in its position as spokesman for the government; ergo, a pledge made by one attorney on the case must be attributed to the
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
I will argue that Bitzer does not succeed in providing a successful argument for his claims of the compell...
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
The conclusion of the court in their summary judgment was that no “genuine issue of material fact” was present to establish “a claim of an agency relationship.” In fact, masslawyersweekly.com reports the court went on to say, “If the evidence had failed to materialize upon any one of those elements, the deficiency would be fatal to the lawsuit. The evidence appears to have failed to materialize upon all three of the elements.” Thus, in this case, none of the prongs of the test was met to indicate agency. (Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,
The opening stories on CNS and FOX on the topic of the pipeline are in support for Obama’s decision against the pipeline. The coverage over the controversy is very one sided and mainly talks about the negative effects of letting the pipeline pass through Montana, South D...
... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case.
Most defense attorneys rely on lack of knowledge, financial gain, and illegal police activity to defend their case. A lack of knowledge consists of the defendant not knowing that the victim is illegal. Therefore there is reasonable doubt, in which ca...
It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act. In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she still was alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence. All in all, despite the lack of concrete evidence, the prosecution team was able to provide facts that illustrated a timeline of events that could fill in the gaps of the
Tuttle, Inc., the plaintiff alleged more than the mere existence of publicity surrounding FACTA and the Clarification Act—an allegation applicable to any § 1681c(g) defendant. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had hired a third-party point-of-sale systems provider that had warned the defendant that upgrades to the point-of-sale system were necessary to comply with FACTA. Instead of making the necessary upgrades, the defendant allegedly “ignored the[] warnings,” then cancelled its contract with the point-of-sale provider. The court concluded that these allegations, in particular, were sufficient to allege a willful violation of FACTA. In this case, the court reasoned, the defendant not only clearly knew of its duty under FACTA, but also knew what actions it should take to bring its receipts into compliance with FACTA, and then chose not to take those actions in order to save money. Accordingly, Zaun provides an example of the kind of allegations that a plaintiff must be prepared to make in order to overcome the more demanding standards established by Twombly and Iqbal. Specifically, plaintiffs would have to plead facts analogous to the damning allegation that the Zaun defendant was specifically warned that it was violating § 1681c(g) and chose to continue to violate FACTA rather than comply to save money. And Zaun is not alone in rigorously applying Iqbal to § 1681c(g)
admission of guilt and all information obtained thereafter are thrown out of court. The result?
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Answer: Tom can file a motion for a directed verdict. It would get the judge to take the decision out of the hands of the jury and to direct a verdict for the party making the motion on the ground that the other party has not produced sufficient evidence to support her or his claim.
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.
The sala of Judge Cresencio Tan was kind enough to allow us to observe cases where evidences were presented in the form of witnesses and documents. The first case was simple enough as it was for the initial reception of the prosecution’s evidence. In this proceeding, the prosecutor merely requested for the markings of the evidences she presented in court and the counsel for the accused was asked if he admits it or not. I was waiting for some evidence that would not be admitted by the counsel for the accused in order to see what would happen next, however, all evidences were admitted. With that, that particular session ended. The second case called was for the continuation of reception of prosecution’s evidence. In this case, a witness was presented and the counsel for the accused addressed the witness. I observed that his line of questioning was set on establishing doubt in relation to his personal knowledge of the crime and the drugs in question. The counsel for the accused was able to establish that since the witness himself admitted that he was not really there during the arrest. This case illustrated to me the importance of the element of personal knowledge of a a crime in the determination of a person’s