George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

This paper is strictly focused and based on the true events, Supreme Court cases that led to the exclusionary rule.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

The discovery of unethical billing alongside unethical accounting practices provoked a chain reaction towards a hospital accountant by the name of Rehberg. An accountant trying to serve justice was entangled in a web of lies. Rehberg vs. Paulk is a very interesting Supreme Court case. Rehberg vs. Paulk embodied much of the injustice that is not presented to the public when sworn officials break the very laws that are supposed to be protected. The Rehberg vs. Paulk case provides controversy among different jurisdictions within the judicial system and gives examples of the different elements of crime within the case.

In Utah a Detective by the name of Douglas Fackrell received a tip of the whereabouts of drug activity taking place. Fackrell over a course of some days watched the house, where he concluded that there was in fact suspicious drug activity taking place. The man who exited the house went by the name of Strieff, who the detective decided to stop and question. By taking Streiff's I.D., Fackrell discovered a traffic warrant meant for Strieff. Under this warrant, the detective then arrested Strieff, and then conducted a search on Strieff due to the arrest. Due to this search, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe inside

MILLERSBURG — Holding on to his claims of innocence, a Killbuck man convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl learned he could spend the rest of his days in prison.

Ballista, plaintiff and defendant were engaged in a long-term sexual relationship. Chao, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 340-41. Over the course of a year, the defendant had plaintiff perform oral sex fifty to one hundred times, sometimes three times in one night. Id. at 341. Plaintiff alleged that during the relationship, the defendant would use rubber gloves and plastic bags for protection, and enter the plaintiff’s cell several times a night, awakening her to perform oral sex. Id. at 352. At one point, defendant confessed to plaintiff that he felt like he was abusing his authority and taking advantage of her. Id. Over time the relationship became abusive, although the plaintiff had told the defendant about her past abusive relationships. Id. at 343. The court found that in addition to being reckless with plaintiff’s mental health, the defendant was also reckless with her physical health. Id. at 353. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 341. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which the court denied, holding that the facts presented were sufficient to show that the defendant exhibited the classic deliberate indifference to the harm he was visiting on the plaintiff. Id. at

The client, Mr. Andy Dwyer (“Dwyer”), wishes to bring a wrongful death claim on behalf of his sister, Ms. Kelly Erin Hannon (“Hannon”). Hannon is a deceased employee of Colonial Charm Garden Apartments (“Colonial Charm”). Hannon died after being stabbed during an attempted robbery of Colonial Charm. Dwyer claims Colonial Charm should have known of the increased criminal activity in the area and that Colonial Charm was negligent in failing to provide extra security patrols for the protection of its employees. Dwyer wants to sue Colonial Charm for $3 million for loss of life, wages, future income, and pain and suffering and $3 million in punitive damages.

On August 6th, 2014, Eleanor Mingle, the mother of EE’s client, Hummel, died in an accident when one of the elevators EE had a maintenance contract on malfunctioned. Hummel saw Mingle get into the elevator, saw the elevator stop at the 9th floor, heard the elevator falling and somebody screaming, felt the building shake, and smelled oil burning. She did not know if Mingle was in the elevator at the time nor did she directly witness the injury occurring. Hummel sued our client in a cause of action for the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, or NIED. This memorandum addresses whether Hummel can meet two of the elements of NIED. Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to Mingle and she was

Clinicient Inc is an EMR software company which provides electronic medical record system to physical therapy offices. As a part of its services Clinicient also offers billing and payment collections from insurance companies for the customers it serves. This company is incorporated meaning that it is not owned by one person or a partnership, instead it has shareholders and is run by a board of directors. This company is currently involved in a number of lawsuits by former customers as well as some former employees. The most common suit against it happens to be from former customers who feel that Clinicient did not provide the services it was contracted to provide. Clinicient failed to bill out claims in a timely manner, failed to follow-up on claims that were not paid due to billing or documentation errors or issues, failed to correct problems or notify the customer of existing issues, and transferred payments received to the wrong customer accounts causing financial issues for affected customers. As a result a civil suit has been filed with the court against Clinicient for breach of contract. The customer has filed a complaint with the court and Clinicient’s legal department has been notified. A response has been filed with the court on behave of Clinicient and both parties have completed the discovery process. “Preparing for trial takes place as part of the discovery process.” (Gray, 2007). “For civil discovery requests, the private interest to be affected by the