Law

Corporate Record Books – Part of a paralegal’s job is to make sure that all corporate records of a business are maintained and up to date. Paralegals create a “corporate record book” to keep track of important legal documents.

Locate your state’s Juvenile Justice State Profile from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/special_topics/stateprofile.asp and select Georgia as the state. Using this chart, answer the following questions in a minimum of 175 words. –          Which of the statistics listed is the most interesting to you? –          What do these numbers mean? –          How does your state’s data for this statistic compare with the nation’s? –          What factors might explain the difference between this total in your state vs. the U.S.? –          How could your community use this information to improve law enforcement, court processes, or correctional strategies in your state’s juvenile justice system? –          How does this information influence your own personal philosophies about juvenile justice?   Answers should incorporate your own opinion as well as researched information.

Read the case study, Revitalizing a Brand.Use the Internet or Strayer library to research the branding and communication strategies of one health services organization that is similar to the health services organizations mentioned in the case study. Assignment Instructions Write a 4–6 page paper in which you: Describe the current marketing communication, identity, and brand position of Plaza Home Health Services. Conduct a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis associated with the current marketing communication, identity, and brand position of Plaza Home Health Services. Assess the importance of benchmarking in Plaza Home Health Services’ development and implementation of an effective brand strategy (marketing communication, identity, and brand position). Compare branding and communication strategies of a similar health services organization with that of Plaza Home Health Services. Determine whether or not Plaza Home Health Services should apply additional best practices to its current branding and communication strategies. Provide a rationale and support for your response. Use at least five quality academic resources. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources. This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment: Determine whether a healthcare organization should integrate additional best practices into its branding and marketing communication strategies.

Double Jeopardy – Research the legal concept of double jeopardy. Be sure to address the following points as part of your discussion on the topic: Definition of the term Legal establishment/source of the right The case that lead to incorporation of the right by the states. Other possible information to include: Other cases that seem to be notable as we begin to understand State of Mississippi v. Curtis Flowers. Information that seems relevant to the circumstances of the case. APA format

The impact of COVID-19 on the legal system and its affected access to justice.

1. 42.1 False Advertising Papa John’s International, Inc., is the third-largest pizza chain in the United States, with more than 2,050 locations. Papa John’s adopted a new slogan— “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza.”—and applied for and received a federal trademark for this slogan. Papa John’s spent over $300 million building customer recognition and goodwill for this slogan. This slogan has appeared on millions of signs, shirts, menus, pizza boxes, napkins, and other items, and it has regularly appeared as the tag line at the end of Papa John’s radio and television advertisements.     Pizza Hut, Inc., is the largest pizza chain in the United States, with more than 7,000 restaurants. Pizza Hut launched a new advertising campaign in which it declared “war” on poor-quality pizza. The advertisements touted the “better taste” of Pizza Hut’s pizza and “dared” anyone to find a better pizza. Pizza Hut also filed a civil action in federal court, charging Papa John’s with false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act. What is false advertising? What is puffery? How do they differ from one another? Are consumers smart enough to see through companies’ puffery? Is the Papa John’s advertising slogan “Better Ingredients? Better Pizza” false advertising? Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s International, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, Web 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 23444 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) 2. Rule Making The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal administrative agency, is charged with enforcing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This statute mandates that the FDA limit the amount of “poisonous or deleterious substances” in food. Pursuant to this authority, the FDA established certain “action levels” of unavoidable contaminants, such as aflatoxins, in food. Food producers that sell products that are contaminated above the set action level are subject to enforcement proceedings initiated by the FDA. In announcing these action levels, the FDA did not comply with the notice and comment procedure required for the adoption of a substantive or legislative rule. The FDA argued that the “action levels” are merely interpretive rules or statements of policy that do not re- quire notice and comment. The Community Nutrition Institute, a consortium of consumer public interest groups, sued to require the FDA to follow the notice and comment procedure. Who wins? Community Nutrition Institute v. Young, 260 U.S. App. D.C. 294, 818 F.2d 943, Web 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 6385 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) 3. Food Regulation Barry Engel owned and operated the Gel Spice Co., Inc. (Gel Spice), which specialized in the importation and packaging of various food spices for resale. All the spices Gel Spice imported were unloaded at a pier in New York City and taken to a ware- house on McDonald Avenue. Storage and repackaging of the spices took place in the warehouse. During three years, the McDonald Avenue warehouse was inspected four times by investigators from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The investigators found live rats in bags of basil leaves, rodent droppings in boxes of chili peppers, and mammalian urine in bags of sesame seeds. The investigators produced additional evidence which showed that spices packaged and sold from the warehouse contained insects, rodent excreta pellets, rodent hair, and rodent urine. The FDA brought criminal charges against Engel and Gel Spice. Are they guilty? United States v. Gel Spice Co., Inc., 601 F.Supp. 1205, Web 1984 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21041 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York)

Part 2: 10 Multiple Choice Questions Cut and past the Answers into your Final submission with your essay. Answers 1.  2.  3.  4.  5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.   1. Steve was crossing a street in a crosswalk when Barbara walking just ahead of him was hit by a truck.  Steve, who had jumped out of the way of the truck, administered CPR to Barbara, who was a stranger.  Barbara bled profusely, and Steve was covered in blood.  Barbara died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Steve became very depressed immediately after the incident and developed physical symptoms as a result of his emotional distress. The Steve has brought an action against the driver of the truck for negligent infliction of emotional distress.  What is the strongest argument for the defense?  A.  Steve did not see the driver hit Barbara. B.  Steve was acting as a Good Samaritan so NIED does not apply. C.  Steve was covered in Barbara’s blood and developed physical symptoms as a result of this not witnessing the accident. D. Steve was not a family member.    2. For negligent infliction of emotional distress and bystander recovery theory, which of the following is not an essential element of the plaintiff’s burden of proof?  A. The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. B. The plaintiff’s mental distress resulted from a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident. C. The plaintiff suffered demonstrable physical injury from the accident. D. A close relative is killed or injured by the defendant.   3. The following is NOT an element to a NIED action:  A. The plaintiff must be married to the victim. B. Emotional distress with a physical manifestation. C. Contemporaneous observance of the accident. D. A close relative is killed or injured by the defendant. 4. After her husband died in a hospital, a widow directed the hospital to send her husband’s body to a funeral home for burial.  The hospital negligently misidentified the husband’s body and sent it to be cremated.  When she was informed of the hospital’s mistake, the widow suffered serious emotional distress.  She has sued the hospital. Is the hospital likely to be held liable to the widow for NIED? A. No, because the widow did not witness the cremation. B. No, because the widow was never in any danger of bodily harm. C. No, because the widow in no longer a close family member. D. No, because the negligent handling of the husband’s body is not likely to cause serious emotional distress.   5. Mark go a shiny new bicycle from Fabulous Bikes. When Mark was riding the bicycle the frame of the bicycle broke and Mark suffered injuries to his leg. Mark’s sister Marcia, saw the accident take place. Marcia becomes distraught to such an extent that she seeks medical care, for nightmares, and a nerves tick.   Will Marcia prevail in a claim of NIED against Fabulous Bikes.   A. Yes, because Marcia is Mark’s sister.   B. Yes, because Marcia was a witness to the accident.   C. Yes, because Marcia was so distraught that he sought medical care.   D. Yes, because Marcia has experienced severe physical manifestations of emotional distress.   E. All of the Above    6. Mary, a 68-year-old widow, lived with her nephew Eric because of her bad hip. Mary hired an electrician to make some wiring repairs to her home and the electrician accidentally started a fire that destroyed her house and killed Eric. Mary got out of the house and was not injured but watched in horror as Eric burned alive. It was emotionally devastating for Mary, can she recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress? A. Yes, because the electrician was the cause of her emotional distress through his outrageous conduct of starting the fire. B. Yes, because Eric was living with her at the time. C. No, because her situation does not meet all the elements necessary to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. D. No, because she assumed the risk by having someone do electrical work in her home.   7. What Dose a Plaintiff Need to Prove to Sue for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress As a Bystander to an Automobile Accident? A. The Impact Rule: The defendant’s actions caused some type of impact or physical contact to the Plaintiff. B. The Zone of Danger Rule: Requires the plaintiff to be in close enough proximity to the defendant’s negligent actions that the plaintiff was at risk of physical harm. C. Foreseeability Rule: the defendant to have been able to reasonably predict that her or his actions could cause negative consequences for the plaintiff. D. Emotional Distress Rule: The plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress, greater than that of a disinterested bystander.    8. To prove negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander, a plaintiff must show? A. The plaintiff is related to the victim by marriage. B. The plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and but does not need to be aware that the victim was being injured. C. As a result of the injury, the victim suffered severe emotional distress. D. All of the above. E. None of the above.   9. Who is not a “close relative” under NIED? A. The victim’s spouse. B. The victim’s grandparents. C. The victim’s unmarried cohabitant of 7 years. D. The victim’s parents.    10. Which is not a “witness” to an accident for NIED? A. Present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred. B. Aware of the accident but was not immediately aware it was causing injury to a family member. C. Aware that the event was causing injury to the victim. D. Aware at the time of the accident, through some sensory means, that his or her relative was being injured.

One evening during lockdown, Fola goes for his daily run. As he is running, a police car stops and a police officer, Bob, gets out, and shouts at Fola to stop. As Fola is listening to music, he doesn’t hear the officer and keeps running. Bob then draws his weapon and shoots Fola in the legs. One bullet hits Fola’s artery and Fola dies from blood loss on his way to the hospital. On social media, Bob later writes that he thought Fola was ‘coming to get him’. The next day, as part of the unrest following Fola’s death, Petra throws some lit newspapers through the window of the local police station. Petra believes the police station to be empty as she made a warning call earlier, telling all officers to get out and go home. The fire consumes the bottom floor of the police station before fizzling out. In fact, the station is not empty as one of the officers, Nick, who had been asleep in a room on the third floor, hadn’t heard the warning. The smoke from the fire wakes him up, and fearing for his life, he jumps out of the window, breaking several bones. A journalist, Ed, who has heard about the fire at the police station via twitter, drives his broadcast van to the station. Not seeing Nick lying on the ground, Ed runs over him with the van and Nick dies minutes later. Advise Bob and Petra. also there should be example cases when advise to bob or petra also there should be some references not internet sources. also answer should back up with cases.

OSCOLA referencing is required. Someone who has an understanding of the English Legal system should take this essay. Footnotes, bibliography and research trail are not included in the word count.

This assessment assesses the following Unit Learning Outcomes: Learning Outcome 3: Read Statutes and identify key legal principles provided by those statutes Learning Outcome 4: Read Case Law and identify key legal principles provided by those statutes Learning Outcome 5: Explain the principles they have identified in outcomes one to four above in writing Background and Context: Finding, reading, and extracting key information from legal documents will underpin all your studies in law. This element of the assessment will support you in gaining those skills for success in your future studies. Assignment Details and Instructions: You will write a case summary of the following case: R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) (Respondent) [2018] UKSC 32 The word limit is 1000 words. Directions 1) Find the case 2) Read the case, using the following table to make notes and form your structure. Relevant facts:- the events that resulted in the case being brought to court. Procedural history: -this includes: (1) the type of claim: eg. a claim for judicial review of administrative action, which in the UK would be made in the High Court (Administrative Division) or an application to the European Court of Human Rights (2) the history of any appeal process that has taken place and a summary of decisions that were made by previous courts lower in the hierarchy. Relevant law:-The law that is in play (either legislation or case law) in the case. This might be a section of an Act or an Article in a convention. In terms of identifying the point of law decided, it is necessary to identify the part of the law upon which the determination of the case rests. For ECHR articles, note down what type of right it is. It may not say in the judgment, but you will be able to tell from the way that the right is applied. The issues in the case:-these are the legal issues (points of law) that the judge has to decide. For this exercise, make sure you cover: a) The type of ECHR rights in play b) Thewaytheyneedtobeapplied c) The issues surrounding the application of the Human Rights Act The argument of the parties:-an explanation of the arguments made by each side The ratio of the case:-this is the legal decision that the case centres upon. It is the point of law decided by the court and will be a point of law that has been made on the material facts of the case. This should refer back to the issues. The ruling in the case:- this is the end result in the case. Eg that the claimant won or lost their claim/application or their appeal. Again, refer back to the issues you identified earlier. . Then use the headings and your notes to shape this into a full case summary. Do not submit this in table form. 4) Please use Oscola referencing for this. This will be a very easy start to OSCOLA for you as you have a very limited range of sources to reference here. Please refer to the ‘support’ section for resources on OSCOLA referencing.