Moot Court Case Summary

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

SUPPORT FOR ETHICAL ISSUES: As stated in the case, Burlington did not “question the jury’s determination that the motivation for these acts was retaliatory.” Inferring that this is an admission of guilt by Burlington, one can conclude that a deliberate business decision to retaliate outweighed any legal ramifications.

Thoughts: This case is a good example of judicial review of which a higher court can review the

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Large businesses often can maneuver their way through the system very well due to the extremely large amounts of money then have. These companies have been known to use harmful production techniques that destroy our national resources and in some cases our own citizens and are not legally implicated. In the case of “Madison v. Ducktown, Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.”, a large mining company had been damaging the air quality, destroy the local environment, and made several properties unlivable through the system of their mining.

Natural law, the idea that man is born with certain rights, began to take hold in Europe during the 18th century. Natural law recognizes the rights that man alone has at birth,

The petitioner Graham, in this case, is a diabetic man who has asked his friend Berry to drive him to the convenience store to counteract his onset insulin reaction by purchasing a container of orange juice. Seeing the number of people in the store upon his arrival, petitioner Graham hurries back out to the car Berry is currently waiting for him in, asking Berry to drive him over to one of his friend’s houses instead. A city officer respondent Connor grew uncertain witnessing petitioner Graham quickly enter and exit the store, so he followed Berry’s car making an investigative stop, telling the two of them to stand by while Officer Connor gathers the details of what had happened in the store. Upon backup police officers arrival on scene, Graham was put into handcuffs, sustaining multiple injuries while the officers ignored any

CM spoke to Sergio Paredes, CMO Court Liaison regarding an update on Dre’quan (youth) OOH treatment status. CM informed Mr. Paredes that the Clinical Director at Daytop is still reviewing the referral documents and Daytop have not contacted CM regarding an update on youth’s status yet. Mr. Paredes provided CM with Honoria Forte (Youth’s Attorney) for CM to follow-up with attorney regarding this matter.

Governments would traditionally act as a force of the people, by the people and for the people, but recently however, corporations have placed themselves within this relationship, to influence governments to act in their favor. A notable example in this sense is represented by the oil drilling companies, which continue to pollute and prevent alternative sources of energy from developing. Exxon Mobil has for instance spent millions of dollars to prove that global warming is a make belief phenomenon, rather than a real threat (Mandia).

Because of this case, the Supreme Court has established their abilities to review or investigate into the other two branches when determining if certain actions or laws are constitutional. This is one of the first cases where the system of “checks and balances” has come into play, which has helped set the rulings for all of the cases after this when regarding other

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

Even if we assume that Shahmaleki does have a property interest in his continued enrollment then there is still no due process issue as the University provided Shahmaleki sufficient process under the law. Students in disciplinary settings are only entitled to “some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing”. Universities normally should provide students notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against them and an opportunity to present their side of the story. These are not rigid requirements, though, as due process is flexible and tailored to the specific facts of a case. In determining what is enough process, courts balance the student’s

The important facts regarding Ron D. Meyer versus Race City Classics, LLC are as follows: Mr. Meyer a lover of classic cars came across a 1970 Ford Mustang on the classic cars website being sold by Race City Classics, LLC, a North Carolina based company. Mr. Meyer initiated contact with Mr. Thomas D. Alphin, one of the owners in order to purchase this classic car. All transactional discussions were made by email or telephone. A price of $21,000 was agreed upon, in addition to the shared expense of having the vehicle shipped to Nebraska, which is Mr. Meyer’s state of residence. Mr. Meyer purchased this vehicle solely to enter it into car shows. Funds were wired to Race City Classics, LLC and the vehicle was delivered.

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling basis upon the insufficient evidence. And the exclusionary rule. The evidence was obviously considered be irrelevant and incompetent meaning it was not directly associated to the charges or collected and handled in agreement with the law.

The attempt to link the harm to the behavior of the defendant produced its share of successes and failures for the Schlichtmann team. Not only did the plaintiffs have to prove that the corporations contaminated the water, but they also had to show that the contamination caused the leukemia and the other health problems. To do this they enlisted the help and expertise of numerous doctors and specialists. Naturally the defending side recruited their own set of experts. As in any case, each side is going to have an expert who will refute the testimony of the other side’s expert. This is a normal part of arguing a case, but can cause confusion and complication on the part of the jurors.