Analysis Of Jan Hughes, Plaintiff Appellant V, Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant Apellee

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Forensic science evidence admissibility is when the forensic evidence can be used in the courtroom against a person. Any forensic science evidence that is admissible will be used in courtroom against that defendant. All types of evidence are shown to a judge or a jury to me a case against a suspect. Evidence that can be considered admissible, is any document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a court of law. There are four types of evidence. The four types of evidence are demonstrative, documentary, real, and testimonial evidence. An example of demonstrative evidence is

In reference to the case study, subject matter jurisdiction could possibly apply. Since Margolin suit claims negligence on the parts of Novelty Now and Funny Faces for using PYR in their product the case could be heard in a federal claims court. The violation of FDA regulations makes the case a stronger candidate for this type of venue.

On March 26, 2008, Hughes filed an initial grievance against Boston Scientific in the district court of Mississippi, seeking recovery of injuries allegedly caused by the HTA medical device. A summary judgment was awarded to Boston Scientific on the court’s conclusion that all claims made by Hughes are preempted under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. On

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. NutraCea et al., United States District of Arizona, Civil Action No. CV 11-0092-PHX-DGC

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., v. Bleem, LLC, David Herpol Sheimer, and James Felix, 214 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000)

So, how is sonography used with this condition? Sonography is used to help diagnose this rare condition by either scanning transvaginal or endovaginal. Assisting the physician on determining the incision site is also helpful if the patient needs surgical intervention. It can also reduce the time needed for surgery and has a lower risk of biological effects than other test like CT or MRI. If surgical intervention has to be deferred for some reason, oral contraceptive pills may be prescribed for menstrual suppression to prevent further accumulation of hematocolpos and further hematometra (Ramchandra,

The light source has burned through the drape. The patient arm showed a minor discoloration though no skin breakthrough was noticed. Severity level 2-Temporary/minor harm. Stage 2 burn.

Today’s technological world largely revolves around energy and its myriad of uses and implementations. Surgery is no exception and has followed this upsurge in knowledge and equipment. The vast majority of surgical procedures performed throughout the world involve the use of some device that applies energy to the tissue for cutting, coagulation, desiccation, or fulguration for the destruction or manipulation of the tissue. Whereas various energy sources, including electricity, ultrasound, laser, argon gas, microwaves, or radiofrequency (RF) waves, may be used, the fundamental principle involves tissue necrosis and hemostasis by heating. The process of denaturation of tissue begins with the

Under Delaware law, Revlon principles apply when a sale of control is in question, whereby the duty of the board shifts from preserving the corporate entity to actions that ensure maximum shareholder value. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holding, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del.Supr. 1985). The key consideration when analyzing a merger agreement is whether or not the presented deal constitutes a “sale of control,” imposing “Revlon duties,” which occurs when a corporation undertakes a transaction that causes a change in corporate control or a breakup of the corporate entity, such as: a sale or merger for cash or debt securities; merger for securities that transfers control to a private company or to a public company with a majority shareholder; sale for cash through active bidding process; and where, in response to a bidder’s offer, a target abandons its long-term strategy and seeks an alterative transaction. Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., 571 A.2d 1150 (Del.Supr. 1989); Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC Network Inc., 637 A.2d 48 (Del. 1994) (clarifying what equates to a change-of-control); Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holding, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del.Supr. 1985).

Professor Jay W. Lorsch and Research Associate Kaitlyn A. Simpson prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class

This has been described as ‘the only true exception’ to the rule in Foss v Harbottle, a fair description when it is considered that the others are really self-evident and, strictly speaking, not even within the ambit of the rule. It is also the broadest exception and thus the one most often invoked by complaining minorities. The exception included two components: Those against whom relief was sought had to control the company, thereby preventing an action being brought against them in the company’s name; and the conduct complained of must, in the view of the court, have constituted a fraud In early cases, control was equated only with actual control of voting rights,22 but more recently the courts have held the control requirement to be fulfilled not only in cases where the defendants themselves have held

Class III devices include surgical implants and other high risk devices. In addition to the general controls, this class must undergo the most rigorous review process, premarket authorization (PMA). PMA requires clinical trials with evidence of safety and device effectiveness [1]. The path to market becomes more robust and lengthy with each increase in device class level. Furthermore, once out on the market, there are requirements regarding product surveillance, adverse effect reporting, and effectiveness evaluation [2]. These post market approval requirements are implemented to help safeguard public health.