Civil procedure free essay sample

Issue: There are two parties involved in the case dispute the one is called plaintiff, according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , Williamson, (2012) the definition of plaintiff is, â€Å" the person or party who initiates a lawsuit (an action) before a court by filing a complaint with the clerk of the court against the defendant(s). Also known as claimant or complainant,† (page, G22). In this case Jarold Daniel Friedman is plaintiff; he is the one who initiates the lawsuit before the court against the pharmaceutical warehouse, so warehouse is defendant, as according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , Williamson, (2012) , â€Å"The person , party , or entity against whom a civil or criminal lawsuit is filed in a court of law,† (Page G-7). The issue of this case is discrimination on the base of religion as the condition for giving permanent job is to get vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff, so he raised this issue in the court against the defendant who is employers. We will write a custom essay sample on Civil procedure or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Rule of Law: the rule of law in this case is about religious discrimination, as According to (U. S Equal Employment, 2014), â€Å"religious discrimination involves treating a person, an applicant or employee, unfavorably because of his or her religious belief. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, other term and condition of employment,† (U. S Equal Employment , 2014). Analysis: The facts associated with the case are religion law discrimination. Because this fact is the main problem and legal issue for the case. The warehouse put the condition of vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff. Then warehouse withdrew the offer, so Friedman claimed that warehouse discriminated against him on the basis of religion. No I don’t agree with Friedman, even though employers have a duty to respect the beliefs of their employees. Law Ruel†According to (U. S Equal Employment, 2014), â€Å"religious discrimination involves treating a person, an applicant or employee, unfavorably because of his or her religious belief. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, other term and condition of employment,† (U. S Equal Employment , 2014). On the other hands every company or organization has their ethics, rules, and regulation to protect their employees or workers health. So this condition of vaccination can be an issue of all other workers health , so therefore I am not agree with plaintiff, I am with warehouse because if they would have religion issue they would not offered him the permanent job. Conclusion: When the duty conflicts with employers’ duty to provide safe and healthy work environment, the issues creates the problem and sometime legal fight between employers and employees. The conclusion can be this way , that plaintiff can keep the same position which do not require the condition against his religion practice or believe or ethics and rules and regulations from the company for the benefits and health for all other employees of the warehouse. On other side if company can take any other safe way to get him on the permanent position which can protect his belief and also the company’s ethics and condition. Ans. For Case # 5 Chapters 2nd. Issue: Issue: There are two parties involved in the case dispute the one is Jenifer Erickson who is a plaintiff. The other party is a Drug Company â€Å"Bartell† who is defendant in this case. This issue of this case is discrimination for woman. Rule of Law: The law rule in this case is about discrimination law. Analysis: Jenifer sued the company on the fact that the health plan decision was not covers fully for the employees on sex discriminations. According to Saubermann, J. (2002) she was needs a pill for birth control which was not covered under the plan. She asked the company to pay for her pills but company refused so she initiates a lawsuit (an action) before a court. The law says, according to 141F. Supp. 2d 1266 (W. D. Wash. 2001) because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. † (Sauberman, 2002). Conclusion: Jenifer should win the case according to the common understanding of discrimination law; it was discrimination because it was specific for the birth control and women. This prescription is very important too for the woman. The company should pay for her pills, without any discrimination, it should be in the plan for all the employees from company side. Ans. For Case # 6 Chapters 2nd. Issue: Issue: The plaintiff in this case is Entertainment Network, Inc. and the defendant government officials who prohibited the company from filming the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mc Veigh. The issue in this case is about the right to free speech. Rule of Law: The rule of law in this case is , if the press people have more rights than civil , or common person or citizen to visit prisoners or take information from the prison to put on news , Supreme Court decision is held that press’s right of access to prison or prisoners does not exceed the general public rights. Public has no rights under first (SIC) amendment (SIC) to film executions, and member of the press has no right. Analysis: Government officials are stopping the media people filming and showing or selling the footage of the execution. But the fact is that according to Barnidge, R. (2001) the press should be allowed to visit death row, as a member of the press, should be allowed to film executions, Texas appealed the district court’s order that required it to allow film executions. But on the other hand the Government officials give their own arguments and prove of now allowing them to film, the new and recent Supreme Court decision is held that press’s right of access to prison or prisoners does not exceed the general public rights. Public has no rights under first (SIC) amendment (SIC) to film executions, and member of the press has no right. The court used section 26. 4(f) discriminated on the basis of content and gave unwarranted, uncritical acceptance to LAppin’s justification for the ban which gives the idea of ENI having stronger case than the court appropriate. Conclusion: The conclusion is that broadcast of executions would play an interesting role in the ongoing national debate on capital punishment. (Barnidge, 2001). Honestly speaking I do not have enough knowledge about the laws, even about Golden law, so I can say nothing about this, but my opinion is yes, ENJ might have altered its decision . i think court ruled the case in a good way. Ans. For Case # 7 Chapters 2nd. Issue: The plaintiff in this case is person named Ernest Price and the defendants are doctors, pharmacies, and the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured Oxycontin. The issue in this case is price of the medicine Oxycontin, which is different at different places or pharmacies around the area, where plaintiff lives. Rule of Law: the rule of law in this case is business law, the issue of pricing the products in the business. Rule of Law: the rule of law in this case is business law, the issue of pricing the products in the business. Analysis: Ernest Price is needed medicine and he goes to a doctor in 1997, seeking Oxycontin to treat pain related to sickle cell anemia. He goes to three cities at seven different clinics, and visited ten different clinics the doctors, to price sought Oxycontin prescriptions between November 1999 and October 2000 . He notified the doctors of price’s medication-seeking behavior, the doctors discontinued price’s treatment. He took this problem to the court and filed suit against the doctors and Medicine Company. I think that court will take this as unripe case, or not enough stand case, and will dismissed the case. This case will affect a lot of business people, all the stakeholders of the company, dealers, manufacture, and doctors. Those stakeholder people will be all in favor of doctors and pharmaceutical companies because they are the part of this business, and every business man or woman want profit in the business. Conclusion: the conclusion, i think that this case will be dismissed because of the lacking of standing and being unripe case. Ans. For Case # 8 Chapters 3rd Issue: The issue of this case is that Le Cabaret 481, Inc; wants to open a strip club in the city of Kingston. But the real problem, for the company is not having the building permit for the adult strip club to open. Rule of Law: The rule of law in this case is that the city of Kingston has passed an ordinance which prohibits opening within 300 feet of any church, school, nursery, public park, or residential property. Analysis: Le Cabaret 481 does not have the ripe case to represent. This means that the case level is not good enough to be ready to make decision. According to (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Giampetro-Meyer, Barkacs, Dhooge Williamson, 2012) ripeness is a measure of the readiness of a case for a decision to be made. A design to prevent premature litigation for a dispute that is insufficiently developed. A case is not ripe for litigation if it is rests on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or many not occur at all, † (page 22G). This case is rests on contingent future events that are not occur; mean the company has no building permit to open the adult business. Conclusion: The conclusion is that the case is not ripe enough to present to get the decision. Ans. For Case # 9 Chapters 3rd Issue: The plaintiff, Record Labels had a problem with defendant, Hummer Winblad venture partners about copyright violation. Therefore Record labels, filed a copyright violation suit against Hummer Windblad venture partners. Rule of Law: The rule of law in this case is standing which can be define this way, according to (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Giampetro-Meyer, Barkacs, Dhooge Williamson, 2012) , â€Å"The legal right of a party to bring a lawsuit by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged (i. e. ; the plaintiff much demonstrate that he or she is harmed or will be harmed). Otherwise the court will dismiss the case, ruling that the plaintiff â€Å"Lacks standing† to bring the suit. † The record labels argued this rule of law, by saying that hummer lacked standing to make its counterclaims. Analysis: Record Labels filed copyright violation suit against Hummer. Then Hummer filed a counterclaim alleging antitrust violations back to against the record labels. But record labels argued against the Hummer that they lacked standing to make its counterclaims, which means that the legal rights of Hummer to bring this lawsuit by demonstrating to the court were not sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. They also gave reason for the arguments that Hummer not Napster, made the counterclaims and Hummer never competed directly with the records labels. Hummer also has reason to claim that they are partner with Napster by financing Napster, for the online music distribution market. Conclusion: I think that the court will ruled in this case in favor of record labels because they are financial partner with the Hammer and they are the part of the Napster so they can be affected in a same way as the Napster will get affect losing the money in the business. Ans. For Case #109 Chapters 3rd Issue: the plaintiffs in this case is parents of underage children and defendant is Advanced Brands and Importing Co. the problem or issue ,what the plaintiff claimed and used to attack on Advanced Brands and Importing Co. is about selling the alcoholic beverages illegally to the underage children. Because of this the loss is spending money by the children to buy this illegal beer. Rule of Law: The law rule in this case is about standing, so the plaintiff has the lack of standing in this case. Analysis:The plaintiff argued that the because of the advertisement for the alcoholic beverages , the underage children got attracted and buy them illegal to drink, which is not only effecting their health , or morality but also waiting of money in this age. But this case does not look ripe enough or stand to present in the court therefore, this case was dismissed by the court. Conclusion: the trial court dismissed the claim, based on lack of standing, and the parents appealed. I do not think that appellate court found that they had standing because every company has the basic rights as business to advertisement and it is parents duty or they might to teach or train, or control their children not to buy bad things from the market, because in the market not only this alcoholic beer is available there are many other things which are worse than this beer are available , so we cannot stop business companies to advertise their products but we can stop, control, discipline and teach our self, ourselves, and our children about not to use or buy those bad things.