Details of this Paper

devry Laws310 full course all assignments

Description

solution


Question

Question;week;1 assignment;Case;Analysis (based on United States v. Falkowski on p. 348);1. Summarize the facts that led to the defendant?s claim that he was subjected;to double jeopardy.;2. What was (were) the legal question(s) before the court?;3. Based on what you read in this case, what is civil forfeiture?;In this criminal case, defendant Falkowski was indicted on charges related to;the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. The day following the criminal;indictment, the government filed civil forfeiture proceedings against real;property obviously used in the commission of the crime. The sequence of the;events following is important. On October 14, defendant was arrested. On November;5, the United States sought entry of default in the civil forfeiture case. On;November 13, defendant pleaded guilty to some of the criminal charges pursuant;to a plea agreement. On December 2, the government made a second request to;enter default in the civil forfeiture action. On December 14, the clerk entered;default in the civil forfeiture proceeding. On February 2, the United States;moved for a decree of forfeiture. On July 28, defendant was sentenced in the;criminal case. Defendant appealed the criminal conviction, claiming that the;civil forfeiture and criminal sentence constituted double jeopardy and because;the sentence was the last to be imposed, the conviction must be set aside.;The court stated that there were three reasons why the attack on the criminal;case must fail. First, jeopardy attached in the criminal case before the;default judgment was entered in the civil proceeding. Second, by entering a;plea of guilty, the defendant waived or forfeited the right to collaterally;attack his conviction and sentence on grounds of double jeopardy. Third, the;civil forfeiture was not based on the same offense for which defendant was;criminally prosecuted.;Opinion;Statement of Relevant Facts;On October 6, 1992, Falkowski and co-defendants were indicted on charges;related to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana in the Fairbanks area.;Falkowski was charged as part of a continuing conspiracy headed by John;Collette, and with conducting a continuing criminal enterprise and related;offenses. The indictment contained criminal forfeiture counts addressing;property in which Falkowski was alleged to claim an interest.;On October 7, 1992, the day following the return of the indictment, the;government filed civil forfeiture proceedings against real property located at;1804 Caribou Way in Fairbanks, Alaska. This property had also been listed in;the indictment. The criminal case was brought in Anchorage while the civil case;proceeded in Fairbanks. Falkowski was served but did not file a claim regarding;the civil forfeiture of the Caribou Way property, while others with interest in;the real estate did file claims.;On October 14, 1992, Falkowski was arrested and simultaneously served with;notice of the arrest of the property at 1804 Caribou Way.;On November 5, 1992, the United States sought entry of default against;Falkowski in the civil forfeiture case. The request made no reference to the;pending criminal prosecution.;On November 13, 1992, Falkowski pled guilty to some of the charges in the;indictment pursuant to a plea agreement anticipating that the other counts;would be dismissed. The charges to which Falkowski pled included conducting a;continuing criminal enterprise, money laundering, and investing drug proceeds;in a business enterprise. As part of the plea agreement, Falkowski agreed to;forfeit any property (1) which he acquired as a result of drug trafficking and;(2) to assist the government in locating and seizing any such property. The;plea agreement did not specify whether the property at 1804 Caribou Way would;be forfeited civilly or criminally. In fact, the plea agreement made no;specific reference to the Caribou Way property or the civil forfeiture;proceeding.;On December 2, 1992, the government made a second request to enter default;against Falkowski in the civil forfeiture action. On December 14, 1992, the;clerk entered a default against all defendants or claimants in the for feiture;action who had not filed claims, answers or responses. The defaulted parties;included Falkowski.;On February 2, 1993, the United States moved for a decree of forfeiture;relying in part on the declaration and order of default. The 1804 Caribou Way;property was ordered forfeited to the United States by an order entered on;February 10, 1993.;On July 28, 1993, the district court sentenced Falkowski to identical;concurrent seventy-two-month sentences on each of the counts of conviction. The;judgment of conviction makes no reference to forfeiture of the Caribou Way;property.;Discussion;Falkowski contends that the civil forfeiture of some of his property coupled;with his significant prison sentence constitutes multiple punishments for the;?same offense? which is barred by the double jeopardy clause;348;349;of the United States Constitution. He contends that the default judgment;forfeiting his property preceded his sentence and, therefore, his criminal;sentence should be vacated. The Fifth Amendment provides that ?No person shall... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or;limb....? The double jeopardy clause protects against a second prosecution;for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense;after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense. See North;Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072 (1969).;Although the text mentions only harm to life or limb, the Fifth Amendment;covers imprisonment and monetary penalties as well. See United States v.;Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487, 109 S. Ct. 1892 (1989). A civil;forfeiture proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. United States v. One;Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361?62, 104 S. Ct. 1099, 79 L. Ed. 2d;361 (1984). Thus, this Court is only concerned in this case with the punishment;prong of the rule.;There are three reasons why Falkowski?s attack on his criminal sentence must;fail: First, jeopardy attached in the criminal case before the default judgment;was entered in the civil proceeding. Second, by entering a plea of guilty;Falkowski waived or, more accurately, forfeited the right to collaterally;attack his conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds. Third, the civil;forfeiture proceeding was not based upon the same offense for which Falkowski;was criminally prosecuted.;The Relative Timing of Plea and Forfeiture;Where a defendant contends that he was subject to multiple punishments for the;same offense, it is necessary to determine the point at which jeopardy attaches;because first in time is apparently first in right. See, e.g., United States v.;Faber, 57 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1995). Jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when;the jury is sworn or, as in this situation, when the case settles without;trial, jeopardy attaches when a plea is accepted. Faber, 57 F.3d at 874?5. In;the instant case, Falkowski entered an unconditional plea on November 13, 1992.;While there is some uncertainty regarding the point at which jeopardy;?attaches? in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the consensus seems to be that the;earliest jeopardy attaches is when an answer is filed in the civil forfeiture;proceeding. See also United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, slip op. at 9925 (9th;Cir. 1995). Falkowski never filed an answer, so jeopardy never attached. Accord;United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463 (7th Cir. 1994). Alternatively, the only;other significant date would be the entry of default judgment against Falkowski;on February 10, 1993. Until final judgment was entered, Falkowski could still;seek to reclaim the property. United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances;and Improvements, Known as 92 Buena Vista Ave., Rumson, New Jersey, 507 U.S.;111, 113 S. Ct. 1126, 1136, 122 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993) (until judgment entered;the government does not own property). The civil forfeiture of the Caribou Way;property does not impact Falkowski?s criminal sentence.;The Civil Forfeiture Was Not Based;upon the Same Offense;The Fifth Amendment prevents inter alia multiple punishments for the same;offense. Falkowski argues that his civil forfeiture and criminal prosecution comprised;the same offense and relies upon United States v. $405,089.23 United States;Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1994). That decision does not, however;specifically address the issue or discuss the definitive decision determining;whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes. See United;States v. Dixon, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993). In Dixon, the;Supreme Court overruled Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548,110 S.;Ct. 2084 (1990) and disapproved the dictum suggested in Illinois v. Vitale, 447;U.S. 410, 65 L. Ed. 2d 228, 100 S. Ct. 2260 (1980), that prosecuting someone a;second time based on evidence used to convict him of a related crime on another;occasion would implicate double jeopardy. Dixon, 113 S. Ct. at 2861?2863. The;Court held that to determine whether successive prosecutions in volve the same;offense, the Supreme Court will look only to the same elements test derived;from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 76 L. Ed. 306, 52 S. Ct.;180 (1932) (holding that ?where the same act or transaction constitutes a;violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to;determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision;requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not?). Id. Dixon, by;overruling Grady, cast doubt on using Vitale to create lesser included offenses;by reference to evidence and conduct rather than basic elements. Id.;What then are the elements of a criminal offense and, by extension, of a civil;claim? The elements of a claim or charge constitute the minimum which the;plaintiff must prove to prevail. Generally, the elements of a criminal charge;are sketched in the indictment, and the elements of a civil claim are suggested;in the complaint. But, at least in this Court, neither the indictment nor the;complaint go to the jury nor control what the government must prove to prevail.;In both situations, the elements are sent to the jury in the jury instructions.;What then is the minimum the government must prove to obtain a forfeiture? See;21 U.S.C. ? 881(a).;349;350;The government must prove that there is probable cause to believe that there is;a substantial connection between the property and some violation of one or more;of the laws prohibiting drug trafficking. For example, probable cause that the;property was either purchased with the proceeds of drug offenses or was used to;commit or facilitate the violation of various drug statutes. In each case, the;elements of the claim focus on specific property. In contrast, none of the;criminal statutes require the use of any specific property to prove guilt.;Thus, the civil claim has an element not shared by the criminal statutes.;Consequently, it is not possible to find that the civil forfeiture and the;criminal prosecution are identical offenses. See United States v. Chick, 61;F.3d 682, 687 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that if criminal charges require proof;of facts which the civil forfeiture action would not have required to be;proven, then the criminal charges cannot be said to be based upon the same;offense underlying the forfeiture action).;The only alternative allowed by Dixon would be a finding that one was a lesser;offense and the other a greater offense. Clearly, the criminal offense could not;be the greater because it does not completely include the elements of the civil;forfeiture, the involvement of property. Therefore, some cases conclude;without analysis, that the civil forfeiture must be the greater offense and the;criminal offenses must be lesser included offenses. See, e.g., United States v.;Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 574 (6th Cir. 1995). This seems wrong. The criminal cases;all require the government to prove both an actus reus and mens rea, generally;knowledge or intent, the civil forfeitures do not require the government to;prove mens rea. True, the innocent owner defense injects additional elements;into the case with superficial similarity to mens rea, but it is clear that;Congress did not consider the claimant?s burden to relate to elements of the;offense. The claimant is given an affirmative ?defense.?;There is a clear distinction, however, between the elements of the offense and;the elements of an affirmative defense. First, the claimant must disprove;knowledge and consent and the government does not have to prove it as an;element. See United States v. 1980 Red Ferrari, VIN No. 9A0034335, 827 F.2d;477, 478 (9th Cir. 1987). More important, to convict of the underlying crime;the government must prove that the defendant committed the actus reus with the;complementary mens rea. The elements of the criminal case focus on the;defendant and his actions. In contrast, to avoid forfeiture, the claimant must;prove that he did not have knowledge that anyone was using his property in drug;trafficking and that he tried, to the extent of his power, to prevent its use;for such purposes, this is a significantly greater burden than the burden to;prove that he was not an accomplice. Thus, the civil claim and the criminal;offense each have an element not shared by the other. The civil claim requires;the use of property, the criminal claim requires mens rea. The cases that;conflate the civil claim and the criminal offense fail to see the significance;of Dixon?s overruling of Grady. The United States Supreme Court clearly;repudiated both a same conduct test and a same transaction test. More;importantly, the Court made it clear that the same offense test means precisely;the same thing whether courts are considering the successive prosecution strand;of the double jeopardy clause or the successive punishment strand. See Dixon;(?it is embarrassing to assert that the Fifth Amendment single term ?same;offense? has two different meanings?).;It is, of course, true that the government will typically rely on the same evidence;to prove the charges in the indictment and the forfeiture claim. It is also;true that the forfeiture will inevitably arise out of the same transaction or;series of transactions as the criminal prosecution. But, as Dixon teaches, this;is not enough. The confusion in the cases comes from the failure to distinguish;between the allegations in the complaint or indictment, much of which may be;surplusage, and the elements that must be proven. See, e.g., United States v.;McCaslin, 863 F. Supp. 1299, 1303 (W. D. Wash. 1994) and Oaks, 872 F. Supp. at;823?24 (suggesting that, because proof of any violation of drug laws would;permit a forfeiture, any forfeiture is the same offense as any violation of the;drug laws). That confusion is compounded in forfeiture cases when the court;conducting an analysis of elements to determine whether a criminal prosecution;and a civil claim have the same elements, focuses on the affidavit submitted in;conjunction with the showing of probable cause necessary to seize the property;in the first instance instead of focusing on the elements the government must;prove to forfeit the property. It is probably true that the affidavit will set;out virtually everything that is known about the defendant?s criminal;activities, but it does not determine what must be proven to accomplish a;forfeiture. A single use of the property, in conjunction with a single;violation, will suffice. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. ? 881(a)(7).;As the Supreme Court made clear in Felix, 503 U.S. at 380?381, prosecution of a;defendant for conspiracy does not violate the double jeopardy clause, where;some of the overt acts relied upon by the government are based on substantive;offenses for which the defendant has been previously convicted and punished.;Consequently, prosecution for conspiracy or its twin, continuing criminal;enterprise after the defendant has;350;351;previously suffered a civil forfeiture based on similar evidence and arising;out of the same transaction, does not violate the double jeopardy clause. See;United States v. Saccoccia, 18 F.3d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1994)(?A substantive;crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are not the same offense for double;jeopardy purposes.?) (citing Felix, 503 U.S. at 389). By the same token, the;fact that the civil forfeitures and the criminal indictment charge violations;of similar statutes is not determinative.;An example will illustrate the point. Assume that John Doe flies his Cessna 180;on the first of each month for thirty-six months between Mexico City and Los;Angeles to pick up and deliver a shipment of cocaine. Clearly, each trip is a;separate crime which could be separately prosecuted and separately punished. In;addition, conspiracy counts would probably be sustained. The issue arises in;that type of situation as to whether the government could prosecute him;criminally for twenty trips and use one or more of the other sixteen as a;predicate for forfeiture of the airplane. See Felix, 503 U.S. at 386?387;(suggesting that it could). It is not enough, however, to tie a particular;forfeiture to a particular criminal statute. It is also necessary to tie it to;a particular violation of that statute on a particular day and at a particular;place charged in a particular indictment for the forfeiture and the prosecution;to encompass the same offense. It is only then that an elements analysis can be;made. See, e.g., One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, 37 F.3d at 494?95;(prosecution of defendant for drug offenses does not bar subsequent forfeiture;tied to criminal act which did not result in specific prosecution). It is;clear, for example, that jeopardy does not attach to dismissed counts. See;United States v. Vaughan, 715 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1983) (where defendant pleads;to some charges in an indictment and others are dismissed, jeopardy only;attaches to the counts to which the defendant pleads). In this case, a number;of counts were dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Thus, any of the;dismissed counts could form the basis for the civil forfeiturewithout;impacting double jeopardy.;week 2 assignment;Homework;Answer case analysis questions 1, 2a, and 2b from p. 21. Read Texas v. Johnson;on pp. 21-22 first.;Answer case analysis questions 1, 2, and 3 from p. 126. Read Brown v. Board of;Education on pp. 124-126 first.;Answer question 1 under ?Application and Analysis? from p. 139.;Submit your assignment to the Dropbox located on the silver tab at the top of;this page. For instructions on how to use the Dropbox, read these step-by-step;instructions or watch this Tutorial Dropbox Tutorial.;See the Syllabus section "Due Dates for Assignments & Exams" for;due date information.;Course Project Deliverables;Form and write a working definition of hydraulic fracturing that demonstrates;familiarity with how hydraulic fracturing is actually performed, distinguish;gas and oil fracturing (25-50 words). Show where hydraulic fracturing is;currently underway in the United States, in Europe, and in South America.;(25-50 words);Chapter 8 of the President?s Economic Report for 2012, at page 256 details some;of the economic effects of hydraulic fracturing.www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ERP_2012_ch_8.pdfOil;fracking in the Bakken Shale in and around Williston, North Dakota has had;dramatic economic effects. The May, 2012 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal had a;lengthy article on the Williston boom. Using such material (and any other;source material you may find) write a two- to three-paragraph summary of the;economic impact of hydraulic fracturing. TIP: Try a GOOGLE search such as.;Provide links or citations to material you have found that might be useful in;writing about the above points.;week 3 assignment;Negligence is a particular type;of tort action that involves something the law calls a "duty of;care." The standard of care depends on the facts and circumstances of the;case but, generally, the duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us;should behave responsibly and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would;behave.;To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of;care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.;The law looks at two types of causation?actual cause and proximate cause.;Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is;the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that;act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the;injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that;chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.;First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary's car;which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry's;negligence is both the actual and proximate cause of Mary's injury.;Second case: Henry is stopped at the red light. Marvin is talking on his cell;phone and fails to stop his car, rear-ending Henry, and sending his car into;the intersection where it collides with Mary's car, injuring Mary. Henry is the;actual, but not the legal cause, of Mary's injury. Marvin's actions are the;proximate cause of Mary's injury, his actions are the actual cause, sometimes;called the "cause in fact", of the harm.;In order to properly consider the following problem, you should review the;material in your text at pages 296 and 297, read Herrara et al v. Quality;Pontiac, review McCollum v. CBS, especially Part 2 (a) of the opinion, which;you will find in Doc Sharing.;Scenario;Susie Marks was seriously injured when the truck in which she was riding failed;to negotiate a left turn. On the evening in question, Susie got a ride with;Orson to the Elsewhere City Park, where she met her friend, Jerry, and his;girlfriend, Kate. Orson said he would pick Susie up at 11:00 p.m. when the park;closed. Jerry was a minor who had only been licensed to drive for a few months.;He was driving a small truck, the bed of which was covered by a camper shell.;At 11:00 p.m. they were approached by Officer Ruthless of the Elsewhere Police;Department, who told them they had to leave the park since there was a curfew;and the park was closing. Jerry and Kate got into the truck and Ruthless told;Susie to get in the back of the truck. (This state allowed people to ride in;the backs of camper trucks without seatbelts.);Susie told Ruthless she wanted to wait for Orson, or she could walk home, but;Ruthless told her to get in the truck. Ruthless told Jerry: "Get everybody;out of here," and that "if you guys don't get out of here, curfew;will be enforced.;After leaving the park, Jerry made two stops, one just four doors down from;Susie's house. Susie did not leave the truck. Jerry lost control of his truck;while making a left turn and Susie was seriously injured when the truck;overturned. Approximately one-half hour ensued between the time the group left;the park area and the time of the accident.;Following the accident, Susie filed a complaint against the City of Elsewhere;Ruthless, and a number of other defendants. The complaint alleged that the City;and Ruthless were liable because Ruthless had negligently ordered Suzie to ride;in the back of the truck.;Your Role/Assignment;You are the judge in the case. Does Susie have a case against Ruthless? Is;Ruthless the proximate cause of Susie's injuries?;Key Players;Title/Role/Character;Name: Susie Marks;Title: Plaintiff;Gender: female (under 18);I only live about six blocks from the park. After Officer Ruthless ordered us;to leave the park, I told him that I only lived up the street, and could walk;home. Officer Ruthless paid no attention to me, he did not acknowledge what I;said, he just ordered everyone to get into the truck. If I had been given a;choice, I would have waited for Orson, or walked home from the park. Ruthless;did not give me any alternative to riding in the back of Jerry's truck. But for;that, I wouldn't have ended up in traction and missed the first semester of my;senior year.;Name: Officer Ruthless;Title: Defendant;Gender: Male, about 35;It's the law that minors have an 11:00 p.m. curfew, and the park closes at;11:00 p.m. Jerry, Kate, and Susie were together, and Jerry had no problem with;giving Susie a ride. I had no idea when Orson might arrive, and I couldn't wait;around at the park, since I had other duties. I also didn't think it was safe;for Susie to walk a mile home that late at night. Those kids rode around for;half an hour after they left the park, and Susie could easily have gotten home;when Jerry made his second stop.;Activity;Read the scenario summary above and prepare an essay rendering your decision.;The components of a legal decision must include the following.;Factual Summary: Provide a succinct and accurate description of the scenario at;hand. Summarize the scenario to include all relevant facts.;Issue(s): Restate or summarize the question. What is the legal question you are;going to answer?;Legal Concept(s): Identify and discuss one or more legal concepts from the;course material when exploring the problem at hand. Define the legal concept(s);and explain how the concept(s) relate(s) to the given scenario.;Analysis/Conclusion: Analyze the factual scenario in relation to the legal;concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Be sure to apply the;legal concept correctly toward solving the legal issue.;The paper should be double-spaced in 12-point font and approximately 500 words.;At least two sources must be correctly cited using APA citations, including;both in-text parenthetical citations and an end-of-text list of references.;Grading Rubric;Categories;Meets All Requirements;(60 points);Meets Most Requirements;(50-30 points);Meets Some Requirements;(20-10 points);Points Achieved and;Comments;Factual Summary;Student gives a succinct and accurate description of the scenario. Student does;an excellent job summarizing the scenario to include all relevant facts. (10;points);Student does a great job describing the scenario. Summary includes most of the;relevant facts. (8-6 points);Student does a good job describing the scenario. Some of the relevant facts are;included. (3-2 points);Identifying the Legal Issue(s) Presented;Student has done an excellent job identifying the legal Issue(s) by clearly;restating or summarizing the question(s) to be answered through legal and;factual analysis. (12 points);Student has done a good job identifying the legal Issue(s), but could have more;clearly restated or summarized the question(s) to be answered through legal and;factual analysis. (10-6 points);Student did not fully restate or summarize the question(s) to be answered;through legal and factual analysis. (3-2 points);Legal Concepts;Student has thoroughly discussed one or more legal concepts from the course;material when exploring the problem at hand. Student has correctly defined the;legal concept(s) and explained how the concept(s) relate(s) to the given;scenario. (12 points);Student does a great job;discussing at least one of the legal concepts from the course material, but;could have more thoroughly defined the legal concept(s) and explained how the;concept(s) relate to the given scenario. (10-6 points);Student does not fully discuss at least one of the legal concepts from the;course material and does not fully explain how the concept relates to the given;scenario. (3-2 points);Analysis/;Conclusion;Student has clearly demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the task at hand;by correctly and thoroughly analyzing the factual scenario in relation to the;legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. The analysis is;logical and the student does an excellent job applying the legal concept;correctly toward solving the legal issue. (14 points);Student has done a good job demonstrating an understanding of the task at hand;but could have more thoroughly analyzed the factual scenario in relation to the;legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. The student could;have further demonstrated a logical analysis of the legal concept toward;solving the legal issue. (12-6 points);Student did not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the task at hand by not;thoroughly analyzing the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept.;Student did not reach a well-reasoned conclusion. (3-2 points);Format;Student meets all formatting requirements. Paper is double-spaced in 12-point;font and is approximately 500 words. At least two sources have been cited;correctly using APA citations, both in-text parenthetical citations and an;end-of-text list of references. Paper has no grammar or spelling problems and;is well written. Paragraph transitions are present and logical and flow is;maintained throughout the response. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise.;(12 points);Student meets most formatting requirements. Paper is double spaced in 12-point;font and is 500 or almost 500 words. One to two sources have been cited using;fairly accurate APA formatting. Paper has few grammar or spelling problems and;is fairly well written. Paragraph transitions are mostly present and logical;and a good flow is maintained throughout most of the response. Sentences are mostly;complete, clear, and concise. (10-6 points);Student has not substantially complied with formatting requirements. Paper may;have major grammar or spelling problems and is not well written. Student may;not have cited at least one source in APA format. Some paragraph transitions;are present, but response lacks logic and flow throughout. Some sentences are;complete, clear, and concise. (3-2 points);Additional;Requirements;Level of Detail: Show all work;Other Requirements: Negligence is a particular type of tort action that;involves something the law calls a "duty of care." The standard of;care depends on the facts and circumstances of the case but, generally, the;duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us should behave responsibly;and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would behave.;To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of;care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.;The law looks at two types of causation?actual cause and proximate cause.;Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is;the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that;act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the;injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that;chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.;First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary's car;which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry's;negligence is both the actual and proximate;Week 4 homework;Chapter;12 PG 547;Q12 I was;recently fired by my employer, an architecture firm, immediately after serving;for one month on a federal grand jury. From the moment I informed my boss? I;was harassed? and told I was not putting the company first. I was told to get;out of my jury service, ?or else.?? I was fired exactly one week after my;service ended.;Was the;dismissal of this at-will employee lawful?;Chapter;13 PG 600;Q16 John;D. Archbold Memorial Hospital excluded all job applicants whose weight exceeded;the maximum desirable weight (based on Metropolitan Life?s actuarial survey);for large-framed men and women plus 30 percent of that weight. Sandra Murray;claimed she was denied a job as a respiratory therapist because her;height-to-weight ratio did not meet the guidelines. Murray did not claim to be;morbidly obese.;Week 5 homework;This week, our course;presents a Case Study for your analysis about professional responsibilities and;decision-making during an attempt by one company to gain control of another.;Read the Case Study, then review Tender Offers (page 430?431). You will also want;to review the Business Judgment Rule (page 391). You will find the facts of the;case and the questions you need to address under the Case Study tab in Week 5.;Week 5;Simulation: Sexual harassment lawsuit;This simulation involves a hearing at the trial;court level on a motion for summary judgment in a case involving the employer?s;liability for alleged sexual harassment.;Motion;Before a case goes to trial, the parties use;various motions to refine and define the issues. One such motion is the Mo

 

Paper#59116 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $107
SiteLock