Case Analysis : Indiana Rules Of Trial Procedure

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.

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Further defining what is required for a complaint to be sufficient, Sutton establishes that, “detailed fact-pleading is no longer required. A pleading complies with the rule if it gives sufficient notice of the events or transactions which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to understand the nature of it and the basis for it.” Id. at 104. The court provided the rational for only requiring such notice by indicating how the “opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.” Id. at 102.

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

So García and four others came to the Supreme Court case hearing: Chris Alderete and James de Anda of the American G.I. Forum and John J. Herrera and Carlos Cadena from the League of United Latin American Citizens. The Supreme Court heard the Hernández V. The State of Texas case in 1954. There was two sides for this case, Hernández’ and The State of Texas. García fought for Hernández and argued that the 14th amendment not only protected the rights of races like white and black but also class. He said that those citizens in the jury selection process were being discrediting and excluding people based on class and that’s why there hasn’t been a Mexican-American citizen on a Texas jury in over 25 years. This affected all the minorities and lower classes especially Mexican-Americans and made it unfair to them in court cases. On the other hand The State of Texas said that the 14th amendment only protected the rights of whites and blacks and that Mexican-Americans fall under the white class. Furthermore, The State of Texas verified that no Mexican-American had served on the jury in over 25 years but proposed that it was just a coincidence and not because of discrimination. I believe The State of Texas was worried about having minorities and separate classes in juries because they might not make the same decisions that the average white man would make. Thus Texas was hesitant to promote the electing of any Mexican-American to a jury

The article “A Plea to North Carolina: Bringing fairness to the Assessment of Civil Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities” discusses how individuals with cognitive disabilities should be held liable for their actions. When mentally insane people intentionally attack people, they should be charged for their misdemeanors. Even when successfully pleading insane in a courtroom, they may not have their charges dropped. Chriscoe uses the example regarding the case of Mcguire Vs Almy, where a registered nurse sued one of her patients that attacked her. Even though he was insane, he still had the intent of trying to harm her. Due to this fact, the court ruled that he was liable for his actions. In many cases, courts have to prove

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

A precedent case very similar to this case is the Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 University of Michigan Law School case. In this case the University of Michigan claimed that they had a good enough reason to discriminate based on race in order to obtain the educational benefits to have a diverse law school program. The court believed the law schools reason was good enough to justify the racial discrimination. The University argued that the reason for the interest in attaining diversity for its own sake. The second is an interest in attaining educational benefits that alleged flow from diversity. Diversity is needed in any institution. Grutter even acknowledge that diversity creates racial balancing. The law school was interested in assuring a certain

In the case sub judice, we are called upon to adopt one of two polarized positions by holding either that this is one of the infrequent instances where a trial court has abused the discretion vested in it, or, alternatively, we are asked to endorse the equally exceptional position that this is the first “unusual and compelling circumstance” since the Court of Appeals adopted this articulation of the rule in 1975. A. S. Abell Co., 274 Md. at 721. After weighing the considerations that are woven through our authorities on this subject; namely, judicial economy, comity, and control of the litigation; we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Volkman’s motion for summary judgment.

Then, it was the defense attorney’s turn to make the case. He started off by denying all the allegations and accusations against his notorious client. He argued that he was also the victim of war, who was captured as a prisoner of war by the Nazis while serving for the Soviets. He was a mere pawn of the blame game, he argued, which incited protests and even boos from the audience. The man at the back observed the trial unfazed, slouched deep in his seat. The passionately spoken words of the prosecutor or the defense attorney did not impress him in the least.

A Humboldt County judge on Thursday ruled one of the five suspected accused of murdering a man along Highway 255 in Manila was incompetent to stand trial.