Derlyn E. Moe V. Eastern Air Lines Inc Summary

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

Identify the battery issue involving defendants Green and DeVon in the case of Paur v. Rose City Dodge, Inc

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

The parties in this lawsuit are: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and Mims Distributing Company, Inc (defendant), the EEOC is the plaintiff on behalf of Christopher Alston (Lally, 2015). Christopher Alston was a potential employee of the Mims Distributing Company, Inc.

A California worker is suing Crossmark, accusing them of failing to abide by California state law in connection to the payment of overtime wages as well as violations of workers compensation laws. The plaintiff in the case, Irvin Howard, is a retail executive from California. He filed the lawsuit in April 2016 against Crossmark, Inc. He alleged that Crossmark, Inc. failed to provide fair compensation to their employees through overtime payments at rates established by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of overtime pay provisions outlined in the Howard County General Pay Plan (“HCGPP”). Appellant, Lynda Neser (“Neser”) contends that she was deprived of compensation to which she was entitled under certain provisions of the HCGPP. Neser filed a grievance with the Howard County Personnel Office. A personnel officer denied Neser’s grievance. Neser then appealed the personnel officer’s decision to the appellees, the Howard County Personnel Board (“the Board”). The Board adopted the findings of the personnel officer and affirmed the denial of Neser’s grievance. Neser then filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The circuit court affirmed the

Re: Whether the trial court acted appropriately in excusing Mr. Eldridge form paying $3,500 accrued in child support.

Finally, the third reason is a breach of warranty claim. The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. Ultimately, Nancy Denny won because the court found that defendant had, “breached its implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries”. Ford may have avoided these liabilities had they marketed the vehicles manual towards off road only, or had they proved product safety was “reasonable” to drive in ordinary circumstances.

Finally, the district court applied Texas law to hold that the EEOC could not recover for Rafiq 's mental anguish because there was no evidence that the anguish or stress that Rafiq suffered "was so debilitating that it interrupted his daily life." In reaching this conclusion, the district court erred in two ways: (1) the availability of mental anguish damages for a Title VII claim is determined by federal law, not state law; and (2) the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC.

Eisenberg made claim of sexual harassment and told of employees using illegal substances in the warehouse

Presence or absence of a fixed maturity date: Although fixed maturity dates existed, postponing maturity suggests a lack of intent to require repayment. This factor supports the treatment of the advances as equity because the directors did not intend to request repayment and continually extended the maturity dates, never enforcing them.

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

civilian job and not wearing a uniform. Any person who fits those critera is eligible, regardless of rank, duties, time in the service, time remaining until retirement, or history of conduct (either good or bad).

“Everyone knows the dangers of being in the military. Many military members put their lives on the line every day, which makes them some of the most underpaid people in America. But there are also other considerations, such as working with hazardous materials and in dangerous situations, being on call 24-7/365, and dealing with long term deployments and family separation”(Guina). I will write about why Military members are not getting paid enough, but not all I will be focusing on military members who are single with no dependents and are part of deployable units and I will be comparing them to their civilian counterparts who are in college.

Serving the United States Military comes with many responsibilities as well as pressure and accountability. However, the military isn’t for everyone, but it offers so much for those who serve. One thing that must be known and dealt with is that this career could be a life threatening one, and there are many obstacles one must go through beforehand.