A) Looking at this situation, The U.S. Constitution is the source that takes precedence over the federal statute because its “Supreme Law of the Land”. (1) and if there is any violation of the constitution it will be stated as unconstitutional
B) “State constitutions contain provisions, granting its citizens basic rights or freedoms in that state”. (2), however the federal statue has superiority over the state constitutional provision since federal statute pertains to all states and can’t violate the U.S. Constitution.
C) Yes, state stature does conflict with common law of the state, because state stature will always take priority over the common law of the state.
D) “The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land”. (3) and therefore takes superiority over state constitutional amendments, and if there is any conflicting law that violets the constitution then it will be marked as unconstitutional and will not be imposed no matter what.
Stare decisis is a principle that was adapted from the practice of new cases being decided from the decisions made from former ones and “became a cornerstone of the English and American judicial systems”. (4) This principle has been the foundation that has helped develop the legal traditions because the legal system is shaped by precedence which is why decisions should therefore be shaped the same.
Yes, the Turtons have standing to sue under the jurisdiction over persons or property.” Personal Jurisdiction is a personal right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause”. (5) They have enough cause by them suffering from the environment dangers that are made by the landfill like the groundwater contamination. The landfill is not only affecting them personally but may have also influenced the health of other people that surround the area.
In this situation, the hearing can have a transfer of venue if “three general factors inform whether a district court should grant a motion to transfer (a) the convenience of the parties (b) the convenience of the witnesses and (c) the interest of justice”. (6) The plaintiff Mrs. Austin is a current resident of the state of South Carolina also the powered infant formula was distributed to her in that same state. Now the court will change the venue because although all other relevant factors considered it all comes down to this “Courts routinely transfer product-liability actions such as the one in the district in which the allegedly defective product was used and injury occurred.” (7) So therefore, this case should be transferred to South Caroline with no problem.
In this situation, ATC does not have to hand over any files to the opposing party as this will be a breach of the discovery rule. The discovery rule is set “to protect witnesses and parties from undue harassment, and to prevent privileged or confidential material from being disclosed”. (8) The only way to have any confidential information released is if the court request it and must be handed to the judge in a sealed envelope which is read by the judge and, then decided if it should be handed to the opposing party.
It is my opinion; a new trial should not set based on the comments that were said as it’s not enough. I think that the trial judge was just instigating that those comments made by the juror should have had no effect on the outcome of verdict made. All the comments should have been brought up during voir dire. As its where “plaintiff and the defendant ask prospective jurors oral questions to determine whether they are biased or have any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness”. (9)
First, Due Process is “both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. (10) I think that the court should go in favor of Mr. Gunasekera, because Dean Irvwin had at no point given Mr. Gunaseker proper notice of his suspension and he was at no point given any opportunity to explain why or what had happened, which goes against all the principles of due process.
To start, a court should find out how the state violated the commerce clause which is “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes”. (11) The court can clearly see that by there been use of restriction and labels on Non-Puerto Rican cement it has affected interstate commerce; and having those regulations has given more of an advantage to in-state manufactures then out-state and as such does violate the dormant commerce clause.
Ethics “is the science that deals with conduct, in so far as this is considered as right or wrong, good or bad”. (12) understand that meaning of ethics, I can see that Mr. Trevor was clearly acting unethical, because he knew very well that there were some goods that had tested positive for salmonella and instead of having his employees discard the ones that were bad, he chose to let them be shipped out.
The FCPA “provides that a person’s state of mind is knowing with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result and if such person is aware that such person is engaging is such conduct:”. (13) In this situation, Kozeny bribed some members of a royal family that had position in the government and use their power to have decisions fall in his favor. Such acts of bribery of foreign official were clearly unethical under the FCPA and Kozney was in violation of the essential rights under a duty-based analysis.
1), 3), 4), 8), 9),10), & 11) Cross, F., Miller, R. L. (2017). West’s Legal Environment of Business (10th ed). Mason, OH: Cengage.
2) Hames, J. B., & Ekern, Y. (2005). Constitutional law: Principles and practice. Australia: Thomson/Delmar Learning
5) Correa, Daniel R (Spring 2015) Texas Civil Procedure Rule 202 Through the Personal Jurisdiction Looking Glass The Review of Litigation; 34, 2; Criminal Justice Database pg. 213 KU Liberty ProQuest database
6) & 7) Austin v. Nestle USA, Inc., 677 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D. Minn.2009
12) Dewey, John; Tufts, James H.; In: Ethics. Dewey, John; Tufts, James H.; Publisher: Henry Holt and Company; 1908, pp. 1-14. Chapter KU Liberty Full Text Finder
13) United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011)