Tyler Chase Harper v Poway Unified School District Essay

Facts: Tyler Chase Harper, a high school sophomore, was sent to the principal’s office for violating the dress code. He was wearing a T-shirt which contained statements that disparaged the homosexual community. Chase filed suit in federal court claiming that the school violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, as well as rights protected by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses under the federal Constitution and the California Civil Code.

Chase asked the court for a preliminary injunction and the school asked to dismiss the case.

Both were denied. The Court dismissed all of Chase’s claims except the First Amendment claims because of the school‘s qualified immunity. Chase appealed the preliminary injunction decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Issue:

Whether forbidding a student in a public high school to wear a derogatory T-shirt violates his or her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. Holding: No Reasoning:

In this case, Chase’s t-shirt impinges on homosexual classmates right to a education without being psychological or emotionally harassed by other students.

As a result, Chase would not receive a preliminary injunction for freedom of speech because it is highly unlikely that that claim will have merit in district court.

Lastly, Chase’s claim that the school violated his right to free exercise of religion and his rights protected by the establishment clause is without merit. The school did not violate his right to free exercise of religion because there is no evidence in the ruling to suggest the school burdened his ability to exercise his religion. The establishment clause doesn’t apply because the banning of the t-shirt was not religiously motivated.

In Re Gault Essay

On the morning of June 8, 1964, the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona took into custody one Gerald Gault, without notifying his parents, after his neighbor, Mrs. Ora Cook, reported receiving a offense and inappropriate phone call from the 15 year old boy. Once his mother found out where he was, the county’s Children’s Detention Home, she was not permitted to take him home. According to Gault, it was his friend Ronald Lewis who made the phone call and once Gault heard Lewis talking on the phone in such a matter he took the phone from Lewis, hung it up, and sent him out the door.

Gault was not informed of his charges, he was not given the option to an attorney, he was also not given the opportunity to question of even face his accuser.

Once Gault was released from the Detention Center, the Dean center his mother a notification informing her when Gault’s hearing would be. At the hearing, Judge McGhee ruled that the boys behavior was that of an delinquent child and was sentenced to 6 years in a juvenile detention center.

After receiving this sentence, his mother went to the Arizona supreme court which “vigorously cross-examined McGhee’s actions. He justified his actions by providing the 2 reasons and their basis as to why the boy was ruled delinquent.

The supreme court upheld him, and her appeal, denied. She then went to the supreme court for help. She stated that Gault was not informed of his charges nor was he told of his rights to counsel, to confront the accuser, or to remain silent. She also said that she was not properly informed of the boy’s hearing and the fact that the court admitted a “unsworn hearsay testimony” and did not keep any records of the proceedings. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in Gault’s favor, stating that this was a clear violation of Gerald Gault’s 6th Amendment rights.

Oppression Remedy vs Derivative Action Essay

Many people from different corporations are engaged in many legal cases, mostly people uses their influence to win cases which leads to the minority being harmed in the process since they have no options of retaliating. For example, directors of corporation can engage in wrongdoing by taking some of the profits of the corporation for themselves. The corporation can therefore sue the directors like a normal person (Smyth et al.

628). The minorities that get harmed are the board members of minority shareholders.

There are two remedies that minorities can use in protecting themselves from the power of the majority which include the Oppression Remedy and the Derivative Action. The two remedies that are used by the minorities are similar but defer slightly and therefore people need to understand when to use the different remedies. Oppression Remedy is used by shareholders in bringing actions against the companies that conduct unfair practices towards the shareholders.

In cases of oppression remedy, the court is allowed to makes a judgment that is fair and suitable regarding the situation where that complainant has been oppressively and unfairly treated (Smyth et al. 629). The Derivative action is used by the shareholders in taking actions on behalf of the corporation against the top managements of the corporation. When a director of corporation has done any wrong such as violating duties that are fiduciary to the shareholders, the shareholders can take actions by suing the directors of the corporation (Smyth et al. 28). The oppression remedy are usually used when the minority have been frozen out or deadlocked.

The oppression remedy is also used when the relationship between majority shareholder and minority shareholder has broken down. The shareholders that own shares in corporation are empowered by the oppression remedy to sue the corporations in cases where the corporations have oppressed and prejudiced unfairly the shareholders interests as stated by Goddard in the article “Canada: Ontario: The Relationship between the Oppression Remedy and Derivative Action.

Minority have also been affected in the corporations that are run by the rules of the majority since the minorities have fewer contributions to the corporations’ business practices and direction. In this case, many corporations have been found be taken over by the majorities’ shareholder. The majorities also make the decisions of the companies leading to oppression of the minorities. Oppression remedies are used to bring justices in the case where the majorities hand over the company to their children leading to oppression to the minorities.

The oppression remedy is widely used in places such as Canada (Ellyn 15). The real life cases that will be discussed in this paper include the case of Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. Others cases that will be discussed include the cases of Alizadeh et al. v. Akhavan et al. , Deluce Holdings Inc. v. Air Canada, Knudstrup v. Superior Court, McRedmond v. Est. of Marianelli, Ford v. OMERS and Foss v Harbottle. Definition of terms of Oppression Remedy and Derivative Action Oppressive conducts are conducts that are committed by the majority to the minority shareholders that lead to the use of the oppression remedy.

Court Ordered meetings as stated by the section 106(1) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act are meetings which the court orders to be held as the courts direct when the shareholders have been allowed to be part of the corporation meetings. In the derivative action, a complainant as defined by section 245 of the OBCA is a person such as the director, officer, registered holder who makes the application of bringing the action to court on behalf of the corporation (Ellyn 9). Good faith is a term that has not been defined in the statutes of the corporate law since cases are analyzed on terms of bad faith indications.

Costs are defined according to the Canadian common law as the court power to award the legal expenses of the successful party that are paid by the losing party (Ellyn 11). In the oppression remedy, a complainant according to the section 245 of the OBCA is defined as a person who applies an action that has been conducted by the corporation to the court (Ellyn 15). Investigations are effective exercises that are conducted in case of the oppression to find out the relevant information of the case.

It is provided by section 161(2) of the OBCA that investigations are ordered by the court when corporations have been engaged in unlawful business practices (Ellyn 22). Appraisal remedy is the shareholders’ appraisal right for the company to purchase the shares of the shareholder at a fair value under some circumstances like when the shareholder is holding 10% or less of the shares that are outstanding (Ellyn 24). Winding-up is courts order under the just and equitable doctrines to dissolute the corporation under certain circumstances of the oppression of the minority shareholders (Ellyn 25).

Examples of Oppression Remedy v. Derivative Action that have succeeded or failed One of the cases where the oppression remedy succeeded was the case of Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. In this case the minority, Morris Waxman recovered around $50 million from the case after he was dismissed and excluded from the family business by the majorities his brother Chester Waxman and others (Ellyn 15). Another case in which the oppression remedy succeeded is the case of Deluce Holdings Inc. v. Air Canada. In this case, Deluce Holdings the minority shareholder was terminated as the CEO by the Air Canada who was the majority shareholder.

The representatives of Air Canada wanted the postponement of the arbitration proceedings of the case but Justice Blair of the Ontario Superior Court ensured that the remedy action was preceded (Ellyn 21). The case in which the oppression remedy failed is the case of Alizadeh et al. v. Akhavan et al. In this case, the minority shareholder was awarded the oppression remedy since the judge of the Ontario Superior Court had restored the management fees payments without making conclusions of the oppression allegations merits (Ellyn 19). The case of the derivative action that has failed is the case of Knudstrup v. Superior Court.

In this case, the minority shareholder was not granted the remedy since the case was brought on behalf of the defendant. One of the cases of the derivative action that succeeded is the case of McRedmond v. Est. of Marianelli. In this case the plaintiff was awarded the verdict. One of the cases of the derivative action that failed is the case of Ford v. OMERS. In this case, the supreme court of Canada rejected the motion to appeal (Koehnen 1).

Lastly, the case of the oppression remedy that failed is the case of Foss v Harbottle as stated by Griggs in the article “He Statutory Derivative Action: Lessons That May Be Learnt from Its Past! Analysis of the Results of Aforementioned Examples In the case of Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. the minority, Morris Waxman recovered around $50 million from the case after he was dismissed and excluded from the family business by the majorities his brother Chester Waxman and others. In this case, the verdict was fair since even though the minority was oppressed, he ended up being compensated for the oppression since he was awarded the oppression remedy (Ellyn 15). In the case of Deluce Holdings Inc. v. Air Canada, Deluce Holdings the minority shareholder was terminated as the CEO by the Air Canada who was the majority shareholder.

The representatives of Air Canada wanted the postponement of the arbitration proceedings of the case but Justice Blair of the Ontario Superior Court ensured that the remedy action was preceded. In this case, the verdict was also fair and just to the minority due to the fact the minority was awarded the oppression remedy after being oppressed by the majority Air Canada (Ellyn 21). In the case that the oppression remedy failed which is the case of Alizadeh et al. v. Akhavan et al. the minority shareholder was awarded the oppression remedy.

The judge of the Ontario Superior Court had restored the management fees payments without making conclusions of the oppression allegations merits (Ellyn 19). The case of the derivative action that has failed is the case of Knudstrup v. Superior Court. In this case, the minority shareholder was not granted the remedy since the case was brought on behalf of the defendant. One of the cases of the derivative action that succeeded is the case of McRedmond v. Est. of Marianelli. In this case the plaintiff was awarded the verdict. Another case relating to derivative action that failed is the case of Ford v. Omers.

In this case, the supreme court of Canada rejected the motion to appeal (Koehnen 1). Lastly, the case of the oppression remedy that failed is the case of Foss v Harbottle as stated by Griggs in the article “He Statutory Derivative Action: Lessons That May Be Learnt from Its Past! ” Preference of Oppressive Remedy Oppressive remedy intends to correct the anomaly that occurs when minority shareholders are unable to exercise control of a corporation due to nature of these organizations to adopt decisions based on majority shareholder.

It allows the minority shareholders to undertake legal action against the company to correct discriminatory practices (Ellyn 15). The minority shareholders must provide evidence to the court presiding over the arbitration that injustice has been done on them through, discrimination, unfair treatment or isolation from decisions of running the corporation (Smyth et al 629). The court exercise great authority on the matter of oppressive remedy at it own discretion once there is evidence that oppression occurred to the minority party as provided by acts specified in oppressive remedy law.

The court also allows and presides over oppressive conduct that were committed long before this law was adopted and come into force. Additionally, it provides no time limit on which to file a case after it occurs, thereby eliminating loopholes within the act (Ellyn 15). To this effect, a court in addressing oppression in minority has power to overrule the decision and transaction undertaken by the company, and among other things enforce acts as contained in oppressive law remedy .

However the complainant as pertains to oppressive remedy must be able to provide sufficient evidence that proves the company directives or its subsidiaries and affiliates resulted in its oppression, or in the manner in which directors of the company exercised their power (Ellyn 15). The court in oppressive remedy arbitration has the only mandate to determine if oppression occurred to minority party, in so doing; it will disregard actions done in good faith by management in implementing decisions, which can be used as mitigation by the accused. This leeway forms the hallmark in oppressive remedy cases arbitration (Ellyn 15).

The court requires that the plaintiff express reasonable expectations while instigating cases, what it calls legitimate expectation of a shareholder in line with oppressive remedy act. Legitimate expectation in this case refers to valid expected outcomes as provided in the company acts and provisions, and based on general trends of the company. This means while instituting a case the claimant should without prejudice seek to address valid issues as contained in companies statutes and memorandum of understanding, which is left for the court to decide.

This in essence limits the arbitration redress that is sought to what the court consider legitimate expectations (Ellyn 17). However, unlike derivative action, oppressive remedy provides broad spectrum of ruling that might be sought by plaintiff under this act to include such actions like order to seek an appointment of receiver manager, amendment of company act, appointment of addition directors, orders to seek closure of a company, or suspend company transactions. The court can also award payment and provision of legal fees to the plaintiff if it is sought in the dispute (Ellyn 17).

Oppression remedy like, in derivative action provides for proper person to seek a court redress from a company where injustice is committed against. Such circumstances are provided for in the oppression remedy act whereby a creditor or employees sue as proper person. This is allowed when it is shown that the directors of a company engage in illegal activities through the company or where there is contravention of rights to a person by the company (Ellyn 17).

Preference of Derivative Action According to Griggs in the article Statutory Derivative Action, The corporations Act 2001, explains that Derivative action provides shareholders with an avenue to seek redress against company directors based on contravention of companies act and existing memorandum between corporation and shareholders. It allows the plaintiff to seek legal intervention on any company transactions. The underlying conditions of this act require that the plaintiff be able to prove to the court that the management has no freewill to institute any proceedings on itself.

The issue under arbitration must be shown to be in the best interest of the company at large and done out of good faith by the plaintiff. The characteristic feature of derivative action as discussed in Griggs work, Statutory Derivative Action, is that it can cause a third party that has no vested interests to cause legal intercept on behalf of a second party that is disadvantaged by lack of will of corporation to act in favour of the second party.

Therefore the derivative action provides counter measures of regulating the company’s managerial decisions that are deemed excessive. In the same article by Griggs, derivative action acts provides circumstances under which a suit related to it can be instigated. Unlike in oppressive remedy, the conditions which allow a suit to occur are limited in order to protect the independence of corporation to carry out their mandate and prevent unnecessary litigations.

The derivative action is especially relevant when the subjects of the suit are board of directors that are found to be in contravention of a company policy. It is obvious the directors cannot have free will to institute litigation upon themselves. In total, derivative action litigation require the plaintiff to prove that management actions constitutes a fraud to the company or the minority, or there is intrusion on shareholder rights, or an action done by management is deemed as ultra vires in the company acts.

Victory Rates of Oppressive Remedy In execution of oppressive remedy arbitration, the court only purpose is to analyze evidence and determine if actually any oppression took place to the minority party, while disregarding purported or otherwise good faith of the management in implementing decisions, which can be used as mitigation by the accused. This leeway forms the hallmark in oppressive remedy cases arbitration and largely determines the victory of a law suit (Ellyn 15).

The litigations brought on oppressive remedy require the claimant to provide the court with just sufficient indication that there was cause for oppression to occur. This provides the plaintiff with an edge of favourable ruling over the defender since the burden of proof required is minimal. This characteristic should be a consideration when instituting litigation which requires high burden of proof for achieving conviction (Ellyn 22). Finally suit brought about in oppressive remedy must conform to the general requirements of this act as provided in this law.

Supreme Court Essay

Marbury v. Madison:(1803) Judicial review In 1801, Justice William Marbury was to have received a commission from President Adams, but Secretary of State James Madison refused to issue the commission. Chief Justice Marshall stated that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was the basis for Marbury’s claim, conflicted with Article III of the Constitution.

Marbury did not receive the commission. This case determined that the Supreme Court and not the states would have the ultimate word on whether an issue was in violation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court judged that when the state of Georgia rescinded a land grant it was unconstitutional since it revoked the rights already granted in the contract. This was the first case to declare a state law in violation of the Constitution. . Dartmouth College v. Woodward: (1819) Contracts and State law The New Hampshire legislature amended the original charter of the college, which had been in place since 1769, to make the college more accessible to the public.

The problem was that the legislature acted without consultation with the college trustee.

The Supreme Court ruled that the original charter was inviolable as the charter was a contract. This decision led to a strengthening of property rights against state abridgement. McCulloch v. Maryland: (1819) Implied powers James Madison created a national bank, The state of Maryland believed this was an intrusion into states’ rights and attempted to tax the bank. James McCullough, who worked at the bank, refused to pay the state taxes because he believed the state had no right to tax a national bank. Marshall stated. That the bank was incompliance with the constitution and could not be subjected to state taxes.

This case established the rule that states could not tax an institution of the federal government. Gibbons v. Ogden: (1824) Interstate commerce Act issue was the right to carry passengers along a canal from New York to New Jersey. The state of New York had granted Aaron Ogden the exclusive right. The federal government issued a license to Thomas Gibbons for the same route. On appeal the case went to the Supreme Court after Ogden sued Gibbons and won. The Supreme Court decided that Gibbons was right and that states cannot stop Congress regulating’ interstate commerce.

This was a landmark case because it established federal authority over the states. This became the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia: (1831) State law and Indians The Cherokee Indians had been farming the land in the western part of the state and had established their own government. The Georgians passed laws and tried to have the Cherokee government declared null and void. The Cherokee nation brought the suit to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Cherokee nation was a foreign entity and therefore the state of Georgia had no rights.

Marshall knew that if he ruled in favor of the Indians, President Jackson would not enforce the ruling. So Marshall ruled that the Cherokee nation did not constitute a foreign nation. Thus the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the Cherokee nation. Worcester v. Georgia: (1832) State law and Indians in Worcester v. Georgia John Marshall invalidated a Georgia law concerning entry into the Cherokee nation. In this case Worcester, a missionary, sued on the grounds that the state had no right to control any aspect of the Cherokee nation as this would fall within the powers of the federal government.

This was just one more instance of the Marshall Court increasing power for the federal government over state governments. The Marshall court attempted to protect the property rights of the Indians. Unfortunately, even Marshall was unable to keep the Indians from continually being forced off their land. . Scott v. Sanford: (1857) Citizenship and Slavery Dred Scott was the slave of an army doctor. The doctor had lived in free states and in free territories, but had returned to Missouri, a slave state, before his death. Scott sued the doctor’s wife for his freedom on the basis that in a free state he had been free.

The Supreme Court decided that Congress had no power to forbid slavery in the territories. They also said that as a slave, Scott was not a citizen and was not eligible to sue in a federal court. This decision annulled the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The case centered on 3 issues: a) Was Dred Scott a citizen? b) Could Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? c) If a slave was property, then shouldn’t Sanford be compensated? Scott and his family did win their freedom because Scott’s new owner was the widow’s brother and a known abolitionist.

This case was never about the freedom of Dred Scott but about the future expansion of slavery into the territories. Texas v. White:(1869) Legality of Confederate Government Policies After the Civil War the reconstruction government of the state of Texas brought suit to regain state-owned securities, which had been sold by the Confederate state legislators during the war. The defense claimed that since Texas had not been restored to the Union there were no grounds for a federal court case. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase maintained that since secession was illegal, Texas had never left the Union.

Chase said the Confederate government of the state had been unlawful so all acts carried out by the government were null and void. Therefore the state was entitled to recover the securities. Plessy v. Ferguson: (1896) Separate but equal Homer Plessy was arrested in Louisiana for riding in a whites-only railroad car. Plessy, who was one-eighth African American, appealed on the basis of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that so long as the facilities’ were equal then it was legal to racially separate.

This became the impetus for segregation across the south. Swift and Company v. United States: (1905) Defining Interstate Commerce. Swift claimed to be participating in business that was intrastate and not interstate, which he added, meant the interstate commerce act did not apply to his business. The court agreed unanimously that this was not the case and Swift was trying to create a monopoly. Armed with the Sherman Antitrust Act, Oliver Wendell Holmes said the company had a “current of commerce” among states. Bunting v. Oregon: (1917) Government Enforcement of 10-Hour Workday. In 1913 Oregon established a 10-hour workday for all men and women in mills or manufacturing industries.

Any work beyond the ten hours was payable at a rate of time -and-a-half. Bunting, who owned a factory required his workers to work a 13 hour day and did not pay overtime. The Court was split on the issue and did not want to be seen as a regulator of wages. Eventually the court decided that overtime pay did not constitute wage regulation. Schenck v. United States: (1919) Freedom of Speech during Wartime. During World War I Charles Schenck had distributed pamphlets that said the draft was illegal. He was charged under the Espionage Act (1917).

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rejected the argument that the pamphlets were protected by the free speech clause of the Constitution. Holmes told the court that freedom of speech could be suppressed if there is a “clear and present danger”, and since this happened during a time of war, there was such a circumstance. Korematsu v. United States: (1944) Legality of Japanese Internment during WWII In1942, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which required the forced relocation of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans to relocation camps.

The Supreme Court ruled the relocation was illegal. In1988 these people, of whom many were citizens, received compensation. tL-94l.. . Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas: (1954) Equal protection Linda brown was denied admission to a local elementary school in Topeka, Kansas. The basis for her denial was that she was black. Chief Justice Earl Warren overruled the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson. He stated that the public schools violated the fourteenth amendment condition of equal protection under the law.

The defendants claimed that the inferior conditions in segregated schools hindered their development. After the ruling was made, the court declared that segregation must end. Gideon v. Wainwright: (1963) Representation by Counsel Gideon was accused of a breaking into a poolroom in Florida but he had no financial means to secure a defense. He requested a defense counsel but was refused and was forced to defend himself.

The court returned ‘a guilty verdict. This led to the Supreme Court ruling that all people were entitled to legal counsel regardless of their ability to pay for legal counsel. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: (1964) Interstate commerce In 1964 Congress tried to pass the Civil Rights Act based on its power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress believed it had the right to ban discrimination in public accommodation and in employment. A motel owner challenged the law on the basis, that he had a local business which should not be considered interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court ruled that since the business gained most of its income from interstate commerce; thus, the business was liable to the rules of Article 1, section 8 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Wesberry v. Sanders: (1964) one man tine vote This case dealt ith the apportionment of congressional districts in Georgia. The voters of Georgia’s fifth congressional district, easily the largest district, believed that their representation was not as equal as that of other districts with less people. They argued that because the state legislators had failed to, realign the districts their vote was debased. The Supreme Court ruled that as much as possible districts should be comparable in terms of population. Miranda v. Arizona: (1966) Rights in custody Ernesto Miranda a man who had not completed the ninth grade was arrested at his home in Arizona and identified as a suspect ina rape-kidnapping case.

When he was questioned about the crime Miranda maintained he was innocent, but after two hours of interrogation he signed a confession. At the trial the confession was admitted as evidence and the court found Miranda guilty. The police acknowledged that Miranda had not been made aware. of his rights during the process nor had he had access to legal counsel. While the Miranda confession was given with relatively little pressure it still violated the constitutional requirements that governed such procedures. Inthis case, the Warren court ruled that the accused must be made aware of his or her rights from the beginning.

Roe v. Wade: (1973) Right to Privacy During the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s the number of abortions performed illegally was unbelievably high. Inits decision the Court struck down a Texas law that made it illegal to perform abortions unless the woman’s life was risk. “Jane Roe” an unmarried mother wanted to terminate her pregnancy but she did not meet the necessary requirements. The Court sided with Roe and said that a woman had a constitutional right to privacy that extended to cover a decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Bakke v.

Board of Regents of California: . (1977) Affirmative Action In an attempt to get greater racial and ethnic diversity The University of California Medical School at Davis created a special category for minority students. This was the first constitutional test for affirmative action. Bakke, a white student, was rejected by the university and filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The Court said the university can use special criteria to determine which students gained acceptance so long as it did not use a quota system.

Lucy V. Zehmer Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Essay

FACTS:W.O. Lucy, the plaintiff, filed suit against A.H. and Ida Zehmer, the defendants, to compel the Zehmers to transfer title of their property known as Ferguson Farm to the Lucys for 50,000$ as the Zehmers ad allegedly agreed to do. The families had known each other for many years and the Lucys had tried to buy the facility countless times, but to no appeal. After a night of drinking and badgering, W.O. Lucy was able to entice Zehmer into writing up an agreement that stated Zehmer would sell Ferguson Farm to Lucy for 50,000$.

Later, Lucy sued Zehmer to compel him to go through with the sale. Zehmers argument centered on him being drunk and that the agreement was in jest hence the agreement was unenforceable. The trial court agreed with Zehmer, Lucy appealed.

ISSUE:If a contract is signed by both the defendant and plaintiff parties, would the contract be considered unenforceable if one of the parties considers the writings in jest? DECISION:No.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the rulings of the lower court saying that the writing was an enforceable contract. REASON:The court acknowledged that the writing was a contract. The fact that it was under consideration for forty or more minutes before it was signed. The fact that Lucy objected to the first write up because it was written in the singular; the discussion as to what was to be included in the sale, the provision for the examination of the title, the completeness of the instrument that was executed. The taking possession of it by Lucy without request or suggestion by either defendant that he give it back, are facts that show that the execution of the contract was a serious business transaction rather than a casual one.

BASIC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. AMAZON
Appeals Court of Massachusetts, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 29,878 N.E.2d (2008).

FACTS:Basis Technology Corporation, the plaintiff, filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc. The plaintiff company was responsible for creating software and provided technical service for Amazons Japanese-Language Website. Their agreement allowed for separately negotiated contracts so that the plaintiff company could provide additional services for Amazon. In 1999, the two entities entered into stock purchase agreements. Amazon later objected to securities that Basis sold. Basis sued for various claims including the securities and for failing to pay for additional services Basis provided that weren’t in the original agreement.

During trial, it seemed as if the parties had settled based off a series of e-mails but Amazon reneged and the trial judge ruled against Amazon, which then appealed. ISSUE:Can a settlement be reached, and then be broken by only one party even if the two parties were bounded by such a settlement? DECISION:Yes. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial courts finding that Amazon intended to be bound by the terms of the March e-mail. It constituted a complete and unambiguous statement of the parties’ desire to be bound by the settlement terms.

Courtroom Observation Essay

I attended the District Court at 201 West Picacho Ave on March 7, 2011. I sat in on judge Mike Murphy’s court. Judge Murphy started court promptly at 9:00 a. m. but before I got into the court I had to wait in a long line of about 30 people. then when I finally got to the court house door I had to go through a metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. Then I asked one of the officers working the metal dictator how I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on this morning.

She then directed me to court room four.

I asked the bailiff if it was ok for me to sit in on court today for my criminal justice class, and if the case where criminal matters. The bailiff then told me that yes these cases where criminal matters and as long as I am quiet and obey the court house rules I was welcome to come and sit and watch the court proceedings.

So I waited until the bailiff called everyone in and I went in as well and took a seat in the back row.

The first proceedings of the day was a case of minors in possession of alcohol, the bailiff called out the names of the defendant Nick M. I could not understand his last name. ) the defendant t came up to the table before the judge with his parent. The judge then asks him how he pleas and he pleads guilty. then the judges say he has to pay a fine of $775. 00 and do community service , as well as take a underage drinking class. The judge then stated that if Nick didn’t complete any of the three conditions that there would be greater concusses then he hand the paper work to the court secretary and the defendant then sits back in the seats he was called from after dismissed by the judge.

The next two cases are minors in possession as well and the judge hand out similar sentences that includes fines, community service and a underage drinking class. The next case after the three MIP cases was an DUI case for a defendant by the name of Chris Thomas. The Bailiff called his name and no on in the court room stood up. The bailiff called his name again and same results. The bailiff then hand the judge the paper work for the cases. the judge then wrote something on it and handed it to the secretary and as he did I heard him say warrant so I am thinking that Chris Thomas now has a warrant out for his arrest. he next case was an assault case the defendant in this case was called up by the bailiff and the charges was read and then he was asked how he pleaded and he stated not guilty. the bailiff then handed him some paper work that he had got from the judge and then he was told to see the court secretary to get his second court date. My reactions to the courtroom observation is that the court house generates allot of money in fines and get the community allot of committee service. They are a lot more player in the courthouse then the book states.

The bailiff and other officers that work in the court house are major players in the functions of the court house as well. The secretary is also very important she or he schedules continuing court dates and handles most of the paper work. The next court I attended is Magistrate Court is located at 110 Calle de Alegra and I sat in on judge Joseph Guillory courtroom proceedings. When I went to Magistrate Court it was the same thing as district court. I arrived early and waited outside with a line of about 20 people.

I then had to go through another metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. I then made my way down the hall way to judge Joseph Guillory courtroom where I had to wait until it started at 9 a. m. the bailiff came out to give people direction and I asked if it would be ok to sit in on court today and he said yes I just needed to be quiet and that I could come in when everybody else came in. I then waited and then the bailiff came back out and let everyone in the court room, I then found a seat in the back row and began to watch the workings on the courtroom.

All the defendants for the session are sworn in by the bailiff then as judge Guillory walks out the bailiff orders us to rise and when the judge is seated we all are seated. The bailiff then calls defendant to the stand which I a female by the name of Ashley G. and when asked how she pleads to the charges of DWI she says guilty. The judges then asked her if she didn’t learn her lesson the first time she was caught drinking and driving. She stays quiet for a second then reply’s that it won’t happen again.

Then the judge says “I hope not, because next time you may kill someone or yourself. ” He then gives her a choice of 30 ays in jail or pays $1,000 and do house arrest. Ashley chose house arrest and the fine and the judge hand the paper to his sectary and she hand him the paper for the next case. The next case is an assault case where the defendant an 18 year old male socked another male at a party the judge sentence the defendant to be liable for medical bills resulting in any injuries that he may have cause. As well as 20 hours of community service and anger management classes. when the judge ask the defendant why he socked the other male he responded “I don’t know. ” and the judge stated maybe the anger management classes will help you find out why.

You may also be interested in the following: court observation paper, court observation

Sardar Sarovar Dam Essay

In 1985, after hearing about the Sardar Sarovar dam, Medha Patkar and her colleagues visited the project site and noticed the project work being shelved due to an order by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The reasons for this was cited as “non-fulfillment of basic environmental conditions and the lack of completion of crucial studies and plans”. What she noticed was that the people who were going to be affected were given no information, but for the offer for rehabilitation.

Due to this, the villagers had many questions right from why their permission was not taken to whether a good assessment on the ensuing destruction was taken. Furthermore, the officials related to the project had no answers to their questions. While World Bank, the financing agency for this project, came into the picture, Patkar approached the Ministry of Environment to seek clarifications. She realized, after seeking answers from the ministry, that the project was not sanctioned at all, and wondered as to how funds were even sanctioned by the World Bank.

After several studies, they realized that the officials had overlooked the post-project problems.

Through Patkar’s channel of communication between the government and the residents, she provided critiques to the project authorities and the governments involved. At the same time, her group realized that all those displaced were only given compensation for the immediate standing crop and not for displacement and rehabilitation.

As Patkar remained immersed in the Narmada struggle, she chose to quit her Ph. D. studies and focus entirely on the Narmada activity. Thereafter, she organized a 36-day long, solidarity march among the neighboring states of the Narmada valley from Madhya Pradesh to the Sardar Sarovar dam site. She said that the march was “a path symbolizing the long path of struggle (both immediate and long-term) that [they] really had”.This march was resisted by the police, who according to Patkar were “caning the marchers and arresting them and tearing the clothes off women activists”.

Formation

There were groups such as Gujarat-based Arch-Vahini (Action Research in Community Health and Development) and Narmada Asargrastha Samiti (Committee for people affected by the Narmada dam), Madhya Pradesh-based Narmada Ghati Nav Nirman Samiti (Committee for a new life in the Narmada Valley) and Maharashtra-based Narmada Dharangrastha Samiti (Committee for Narmada dam-affected people) who either believed in the need for fair rehabilitation plans for the people or who vehemently opposed dam construction despite a resettlement policy.

While Patkar established Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989, all these groups joined this national coalition of environmental and human rights activists, scientists, academics and project-affected people with a non-violent approach.

Aftermath

Medha Patkar (right) and other NBA activists demonstrate in front of the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister’s residence for replacement and rehabilitation of all those affected by the Sardar Sarovar dam.Within the focus of Narmada Bachao Andolan towards the stoppage of the Sardar Sarovar dam, she advised addition of World Bank to their propaganda. Using the right to fasting, she undertook a 22 day fast that almost took her life. In 1991, her action brought led to an unprecedented independent review by the World Bank. The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the recommendation of The World Bank President Barber Coinable, conducted its first independent review of a World Bank project.

This independent review stated that “performance under these projects has fallen short of what is called for under Bank policies and guidelines and the policies of the Government of India.” This resulted in the Indian Government pulling out of its loan agreement with the World Bank. In response, Patkar said “It is very clear and obvious that they used this as a face-saving device”, suggesting that if this were not to happen, the World Bank would eventually would have withdrawn the loan. The World Bank’s participation in these projects was eventually cancelled in 1995.

She further undertook a similar fast in 1993 and resisted evacuation from the dam site.In 1994, the Bachao Andolan office was attacked reportedly by a couple of political parties, where Patkar and other activists were physically assaulted and verbally abused. In protest, a few NBA activists and she began a fast and 20 days later, they were arrested and forcibly fed intravenously. Supreme Court’s decision

Patkar led Narmada Bachao Andolan had filed a written petition with the Supreme Court of India [the nation’s apex court] seeking stoppage of construction on the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court initially ruled the decision in the Andolan’s favor thereby effecting an immediate stoppage of work at the dam and directing the concerned states to first complete the rehabilitation and replacement process.

The Supreme Court also deliberated on this issue further for several years but finally upheld the Tribunal Award and allowed the construction to proceed, subject to conditions. The court introduced a mechanism to monitor the progress of resettlement pari passu with the raising of the height of the dam through the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) in each of the party states.

The court’s decision referred in this document, given in the year 2000 after seven years of deliberations, has paved the way for completing the project to attain full envisaged benefits. The court’s final line of the order states, “Every endeavour shall be made to see that the project is completed as expeditiously as possible”.

Subsequent to the court’s verdict, Press Information Bureau (PIB) featured an article which states that:

“The Narmada Bachao Andolan has rendered a yeoman`s service to the country by creating a high-level of awareness about the environmental and rehabilitation and relief aspects of Sardar Sarovar and other projects on the Narmada. But, after the court verdict it is incumbent on it to adopt a new role. Instead of `damning the dam` any longer, it could assume the role of vigilant observer to see that the resettlement work is as humane and painless as possible and that the environmental aspects are taken due care of”. [edit] People involved

Amongst the major celebrities who have shown their support for Narmada Bachao Andolan are Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy[15] and Aamir Khan.[16].1994, saw the launch of Narmada:A valley Rises, by filmmaker Ali Kazimi.This film documents the five week long Sangharsh Yatra of 1991. The film went on to win several awards and is considered by many to be a classic film on the issue. In 1996, veteran documentary film maker, Anand Patwardhan, made an award-winning documentary on this issue, titled: ‘A Narmada Diary’.

[edit] Criticism

The Narmada dam’s benefits include provision drinking water, power generation and irrigation facilities. However, the campaign led by the NBA activists has held up the project’s completion, and the NBA supporters have indulged in physical attacks on local people who accepted compensation for moving.

Dhamma Chakra Stupa, also known as Diksha Bhumi, is an important religious Buddhist monument located at Nagpur. It is at this place in 1956 Dr B R Ambedkar initiated the conversion of thousands of Dalit people to Buddhism. This day is celebrated as Ashok Vijaya Dashmi and on this day thousands of followers of Dr Ambedkar and Buddism join this place to offer floral tributes.

The stupa is worth seeing due to its architectural beauty. It can accommodate more than 5,000 people. The stupa is made out of Dhaulpur sandstones, marbles and granites. The attractive dome has a height of 120 feet.

Salal Hydroelectric Project Stage-I of 345 MW (115X3) and Stage-II of 345 MW (115X3) are constructed on river Chenab in the state of J&K. The project was conceived in the year 1920. The investigations on the project were started in the year 1961 by the Govt. of J&K and construction was started in 1970 by Central Hydroelectric Project Control Board under Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Govt. of India. In 1978 construction of the projects was entrusted to NHPC on agency basis. After completion of project, it was handed over to NHPC on ownership basis for operation and Maintenance.Stage-I of the project was commissioned in 1987.

First unit of Stage-II of the project was commissioned in 1993, second in 1994 and third in 1995. At the peak of construction, about 12,000 persons including contractors worked around the clock to complete the project from 1970s to till date under proper guidance and maintaince of India most successful company NHPC (NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION).

The project was taken by HCC and various contractors. Various contractors spend there life in the construction of salal project (Jyotipuram).Among them the famous names are MR SURINDER GANDOTRA (basically from Jammu who stayed there for about 20 years and completed projects worth in crores given by NHPC till 1993 and later shift to construction of colonies and other work for SEWA HYDEL PROJECT at Bani in district Kathua). Other contractors have also contributed a lot to salal project.

You may also be interested in the following: short note on tehri dam andolan

Judicial review Essay

‘Traditionally, it was said that the courts powers of judicial review allowed them to examine only the legality of administrative decisions, while the merits of such decisions could be assessed only where there was a statutory right of appeal. However in recent years, particularly as a result of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human rights, the courts have begun to examine the substance of administrative decision much more closely’

Judicial review is explained and defined in the case of R v HM the Queen in Council ex parte Vijayatunga, where the Court ruled that ‘it is the exercise of the court’s inherent power at common law to determine whether the action is lawful or not; in a word to uphold the rule of law.

’ Courts examine and review administrative decisions. Wade and Forsythe describe administrative or public law as one that sees to it that the extensive powers of government are not abused to prejudice citizen.

Generally courts’ powers of review are limited to those enumerated under Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

This refers to cases brought before them on appeal. It is the court’s function in these cases to determine whether the decision arrived at is “right” or “wrong. ” The court has the right “to affirm, set aside or vary any order or judgment made or given by the lower court” The court in these cases determines the merits of the case and may supplant the decision with its findings.

Thus, in the case of Adan v Newham Borough Council where the Court explained that judicial review does concern itself with the ‘merits’ of the case but whether government in discharging its functions and exercising its powers acted unlawfully. The Court is not to supplant or substitute its own judgment in the decision but it is to ascertain whether the government body in arriving at such decision did so according to legislation. Thus, the issue is more of the manner or the process by which the decision is reached and not whether the decision is “right or wrong. Anent the issue of whether the decision made is ‘right or correct’ and is concerned with the ‘merits’ of the case, this is properly covered by the right of appeal.

In the same case, the Court also enunciated the principle that considering that courts in appealed cases, only have the supervisory jurisdiction, “it cannot substitute its own views of the primary facts for the view reasonably adopted by the body to whom the fact finding power has been entrusted. Traditionally, courts intervene only in cases where the power used is not allowed by law (ultra vires), or when the body acted in an irrational or unreasonable manner. The court then can only intervene in these cases. In the landmark case, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. V Wednesbury Corp. (1948) the Court clearly explained that judicial review seeks to assess if the Parliament entrusted executive discretion is in contravention of the legislation granting such discretion and whether limits of such discretion as defined by the parameters in the law has been violated.

The exercise of executive discretion must be within the bounds of the legislation granting it otherwise, the act or decision shall be deemed as ultra vires act. The case enumerated the grounds for judicial review as ‘bad faith, dishonesty—those of course stand by themselves, unreasonableness, attention to those extraneous circumstances, disregard to public policy and things like that have all been referred to, according to the facts of individual cases, as being matters which are relevant to the question. ’

In a relatively recent case of Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service the grounds for judicial review had been laid down. The three grounds are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The grounds for judicial review are not limited to the enumeration made in the case considering that those are not exhaustive and exclusive. There is illegality when there is ultra vires i. e. when the body acts outside of its granted authority or against higher authority or when it fails to follow the legal procedure.

There is also illegality when the body further delegates its authority to another. There is this principle of law that the power delegated by law to a body can no longer be further delegated. Another case of illegality is when the body fails to consider or disregards the consideration of a material fact or issue in arriving at a decision. There is irrationality ‘when a decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at.

This means that in order to arrive at the decision one has to apply the rules of logic and reason. There is procedural impropriety when the parties are deprived of their opportunity to be heard or when there is bias or when no consultation is conducted properly as required by the Code of Practice on Written Consultations whenever there is a change in policy. Moreover, there is also procedural impropriety when the tribunal fails to give reasons upon which the decision rests so that the losing or winning party would know he has lost or won.

Another instance of procedural impropriety is based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. This occurs when the one who having the authority to make the decision, by his clear conduct or words promised a benefit to a recipient who relied on it. Before the enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1998, the courts make statutory interpretations of domestic laws in the light of the rights and duties contained in Conventions in cases of contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, in the case of Taylor v Co-operative Retail Services, where the court ruled that Taylor cannot be granted compensation for his dismissal on account of his failure to join a union considering that under the domestic laws, specifically Acts of 1974 and 1976 such dismissal is allowed albeit in contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights. Thus, the dismissed employee may recover compensation from the ECHR. The Human Rights Act 1998 implements and gives more force to the provisions of the Convention.

The enactment and passage of the Human Rights Act paved the way for those injured by the unlawful acts of public authorities to raise them before the domestic courts for judicial review. Thus, judicial review entailed more circumspect examination of the substance of the case. Section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 declares as unlawful any act of a public official which is inconsistent with the Convention right. In effect this allows judicial review and rulings from the court that specific provisions of domestic laws are incompatible with the Convention.

It is believed that the impact generated by this new development may change the results of the traditional grounds for judicial review. The introduction of the concept of “proportionality” which allows restriction of a right accorded by the Convention provided it is proportionate to the purpose it seeks to achieve. This proportionality test is deemed fulfilled if the three elements are present, namely 1) that the aim or purpose must be important; 2) the measures must have a rational connection with the objective, therefore it must be fair, rational and logical; and 3) the means employed must be proportional to the legitimate purpose.

The Human Rights Act 1998 also authorises the court to inquire into facts and examine whether the decisions employ the least degree of restrictions. By reason of the Human Rights Act implementation, a perception has arisen that the sphere of judicial review has been enlarged thereby leading to judicial activism. In effect, the judiciary in its exercise of judicial review is re-writing legislation which Parliament has enacted to overturn its effects. Moreover, there has been a marked increase in the number of cases for judicial review which mostly involve asylum and immigration cases.

Contrary to popular perception, the Human Rights Act did not frustrate the Government’s policies against terrorism, crime and immigration. In fact, there are spheres and areas in which the judiciary will defer making judicial opinions to give way to the opinion of the executive and the legislative as one of “discretionary area of judgement. ” Most often matters of national security, criminal justice and economic policies are given respect by the courts and in these cases, courts applied their discretionary area of judgement.

Yale Diagnostic Radiology v Estate of Harun Fountain et al Essay

Facts: The plaintiff in this case is Yale Diagnostic Laboratory, a medical service provider, while the defendants are the estate of Harun Fountain and Vernetta Turner-Tucker, the fiduciary of the estate. Harun Fountain is a minor who was shot in the back of the head by a friend. In view of the injuries he sustained, Fountain needed immediate medical services from different medical services providers. One them is Yale Diagnostic Radiology. Subsequently, plaintiff billed Tucker, Fountain’s mother, the amount of ,694.

Since the debt remained unpaid, Yale Diagnostic filed a suit against Tucker. In 1999, a judgment was obtained against Tucker. This unpaid debt was however discharged pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy court. In the meantime, Tucker filed a tort claim against the child who had shot Fountain. Tucker included in her claims “substantial sums of money on medical care and equipment. ” Both parties agreed to settle and funds were placed in the estate of Fountain. In view of this decision, plaintiff filed a claim against Fountain’s estate with the Probate Court.

The claim against the estate was denied for the reason that the parties liable for the medical services rendered to a minor are his parents. Procedural History: The Probate court denied the claim against Fountain’s estate holding that the parents of Fountain should be held liable. In view of the denial of the Probate Court, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. The trial court reversed the judgment of the Probate Court and allowed the claim. It held that under Connecticut Law, minors can be held liable for the payment of their necessaries.

It argued that although the parents of the minor child are the one who are primarily liable for the medical bills of their children, under Connecticut Law, the child is secondarily liable for the payment of the same in case his parents fail to pay. Further, the trial court ruled that the child’s estate had already received substantial sum of money as a settlement for the medical services incurred to deny the plaintiff from recovering the same would constitute unjust enrichment. Issue: whether the medical services provider may be able to recover from the child if his parents refuse to make payment or are unable to make their payment.

Holding. Yes. The medical services provider may collect from the child in case the parents are unable to pay. Reasoning: It is well-settled that under common-law rule, contracts entered into by a minor child are voidable. This is subject to the exception under the doctrine of necessaries which state that a minor child may not avoid a contract for goods and services that are necessary for his health and sustenance. The doctrine of necessaries has been affirmed by decisions of the Supreme Court and by laws duly enacted by law-making bodies.

In the case of Strong v. Foote, the court ruled in favor of the dentist who sought to file a claim against an orphan’s estate. There the court held that the term necessaries should not be limited to those expenses that are necessary to sustain life but also those that are proper and suitable to the child’s condition of life. In addition, it is worth noting that from 1907 to 1959, statutes have continued to recognize the doctrine of necessaries. Further, the court also considered the child liable under the doctrine of quasi-contract.

Under this principle, when a medical services provider extends medical service to a child, two contracts are created: a) the primary contract between the medical service provider and the parents; b) the secondary contract between the medical service provider and the child. Thus, if the parents cannot settle their debts in favor of the medical service provider, they can file a claim against the child. The secondary liability of the child is based on equitable consideration which protects one party from being unjustly enriched by another.

Thus, if the parents cannot pay their debts in favor of the medical service provider justice and equity demands that they file a claim against the child who has recovered substantial amount from the person who caused him the injury Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: No concurring or dissenting opinion Disposition: Judgment Affirmed Civil Law and Common Law The case of Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of Harun Fountain et al is an example of the evolution of a well structured legal system that we have now.

This legal system is a product of so many decades of experience, research and study of our legislators which have enacted our laws for the purpose of regulating the relations of the members of the society. This case reflects not only the Civil Law system which we have but it also manifests that we adhere to the Common Law system. The Civil Law is in essence that branch of law that deals with the personal and family relations of an individual, his property and successional rights, and the effect of the obligations and contracts. It governs not only the relations between family members but also among members of the society.

It has for its purpose the protection of the interest of the public. On the other hand, common law is defined as “that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people” (“Common Law”p. 1) The beauty of the Civil Law is made manifest in this case as the court upheld the concept of contracts. In this case the court implicitly declared that a contract need not be entered into expressly by both parties. The parties need not necessarily sign a written contract to be bound by it. It is also possible that two contracts may result from a single transaction.

Thus, the court ruled that when the Harun Fountain availed of the medical services, the parents became primarily liable but at the same time, the child became secondarily liable to the medical service provider. In this case, the medical service provider is protected from the possibility of the parents being discharged from their obligation. This case also manifests the evolution of the common-law system in our country. Having been adopted from the English courts, several common-law principles have been adopted in our country. These principles include the doctrine of necessaries and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

These two principles serve to protect the people whom the minor may enter into a contract and who may be prejudiced as a result of such contract. They serve as a person’s last line of defense in case are no specific laws that will govern their transactions with a minor. (George P. Roach, 2007, p. 2) The minor is presumed to be prejudiced in every contractual obligation. The law takes into account that the child may not have reached the intellectual maturity where he can decide what is best for himself in every contractual undertaking.

As a result, the law gives preferential attention to the welfare of the children by rendering any contract entered into by a minor child voidable. This means that upon reaching the age of majority he may avoid any contract he entered into when he was below the age of majority. In this case however, the common-law extended its protection to the company who gave medical services to the minor. The doctrine of necessaries gives denies to the child the right to avoid any contract he entered into during the age of majority if such was needed for his sustenance and health.

Corollary to this is the principle of unjust enrichment. Under this principle, when as a result of a transaction one party is benefited at the expense of another party and the latter is prejudiced and injured as a result of such transaction, justice and equity demands that the law must interfere. In this case, the medical service provider has extended its aid and service to the child, justice and equity demands that they be compensated by the child if his parents do not have sufficient money. If the medical service provider will not be paid, then an unjust situation will be created.

Thompson v. Oklahoma Essay

  1. Historical Time Period:
  2. Historical Events occurring during period of case.

      The following historical events transpired during this period:

  1. The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) was finalized. It was signed in 1988 and came into effect on January 1, 1989.
  2. Hurricane Gilbert is the strongest recorded hurricane in the Western Hemisphere (Spiritus Temporis web site, 1988).