Oehler V. California Case Study

Judge Reibman held a hearing in Oct. 2014 on contempt charges against Dr. Kolecki for not showing up at the evaluation, but the charges were later dropped. Dr. Kolecki thought there was ex parte communication between the judge and Mrs. Kolecki’s attorney, Waldron, but later agreed that wasn’t the case.

ETHICAL ISSUE STATEMENT: Did Burlington allow one individual, Marvin Brown, to make an unethical business decision to retaliate against employee Sheila White?

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

Equally important is to hire an attorney that is within the ethical boundaries of the profession. With such high consequences' at stake, defendants can not afford to give their cases to lawyers that have spotty ethical records or malpractice marks in their background. Unethical attorneys can result in severe setbacks for the accused. Even if the defunct attorney is successfully removed, time and strategies have already been

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

In the case of Stromberg V. California, Yetta Stromberg was arrested for violating a California law enacted in 1919.  The law made it a crime to have a red flag displayed as a sign, symbol, or an emblem of not supporting an organized government, in a public meeting area. Stromberg was arrested when working around San Bernardino, California, at a summer camp for young Communists. The camp was raided on August 3, 1929 by American Legion members who were led by George H. Johnson, the district attorney of San Bernardino. This raid was brought by the Better America Federation of Los Angeles and the Intelligence Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department.  The raiders seized a red flag and found a cardboard box that contained sheet music and Communist

Another case dealt with a man, whose identity was stolen, and someone using his name when they were arrested. The man was fired from his three jobs and went down to the courts to find out what the issue was. He made the mistake of immediately getting on Judge Torres’ bad side by asking her to “be quiet” as he talked to his attorney. The court reporter explained that this man was already in custody for stolen property, but this was clearly not the case. There was also an inconsistency with the picture on his ID and with the social security number he presented

Later on 2015, the district court granted the motion for summary judgement, and assuming without deciding, that Officer Brown did present a “prima facie case of discrimination based on her race and gender.” However, Officer Brown lost her case, because she “failed to rebut each purportedly legitimate reason for her termination”, and the court granted judgment in favor of the defendants. (Brown v. Davis, Court of Appeals, 2017)

A month previously Ramos received a phone call to a company hotline from fired employee, Betty Koster, who had been working in the accounting department for the past 8 years and believed that her termination was based on age discrimination. As Ramos already knew from her experience, calls from employees usually lead to investigation and should be handled immediately in order to avoid any possible lawsuit. After investigation of Koster’s employment file and interview with her supervisor, Simon Peel, Ramos understood that she needed evidence from Koster about age discrimination, since having been the oldest in department and the only person fired does not prove the allegation. When Ramos conducted a second call to the employee, Koster was very emotional and revealed new information about possible noncompliance with accounting procedures. Based upon her statement, sales representative Mark Tomkin, was alleged to have asked the accounting team to process entries without required approvals and or all required documents. Koster was the only one who did not agree to post anything into the accounting system without supporting documents. This was the reason why she believed that she had been fired.

The second case Plata v. Davis the State a California realized that nothing has changed to better the medical care for prisoners that are staying in one of the thirty-three prisons in California (Specter, 2010). Both of these cases take a look at how the medical needs of prisoners are being neglected that results in injury and death (Specter, 2010). The reasoning for such neglect for the health of inmates comes down to the problem of overcrowding; severe overcrowding makes it impossible to keep a prison safe (Specter, 2010). The two California court cases were combined into one case Plata v. Schwarzenegger when taken to a three-judge court (Griffin III et al., 2013).

Lowry had copied papers for her boss Mona Williams prior to hearing that Wal-Mart’s is planning a 15 billion dollar stock buy back and felt that maybe her boss has traded stock information. Although Lowry, discreetly had gone to the ethic department to inform them of her finding of information she thought was unethical. Upon doing so even though Lowry omits she did not know whether her boss had done anything wrong. Moreover, the ethics departments told Lowry that day they did not see any wrongdoing. Even though Lowry acted in good faith, “pointing out that their might have been some wrongdoing” However, her name is revealed by the Communication department and giving to Business Week and to her boss. In dispute, however, are the circumstances that led Lowry looking for a new job. Since the incident has asked

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey and claims Ailes made

The judge rejected agreements made by Bill’s legal counsel as they tried to stop the case from advancing any further. This ruling made Tamara, Therese and Linda happy according to Joe Cammarata who filed their defamation lawsuit. They believe that their name and reputation is closer to being restored with this victory.

The Committee should expel Mr. Oshea from Western College of Law. Admission to the State Bar will require that Mr. Oshea to prove that he “[i]s a person of good moral character, which may be proved by any evidence satisfactory to the court.” Furthermore, the State Bar often considers an applicant’s financial integrity. In Application of Taylor, the Supreme Court of Oregon denied the applicant, relying heavily on the evidence that the he had committed theft and that he had exhibited dishonest financial practices. Mr. Oshea’s offense covers both of these grounds with a single act. The Committee should apply the same logic to its decision.

Fox brought suit against Robert Half to recover the $70,000 plus its $6,600 fee, alleging that Robert Half was negligent in that it failed to verify that Ms. Ross, who had checked “No felony convictions” on her application, indeed had no felony convictions. Two previous employers had given good recommendations and never mentioned any issues of dishonesty or embezzlement.