As outlined in this Morgan Lewis Labor and Employment Lawflash, dated March 2, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s original decision related to the case Secretary of Labor v. Summit Contractors, Inc. (No. 03-1622, 4/27/07). This favorable decision apparently renews and expands upon OSHA’s “authority to issue citations to general contractors for violations” of U.S. construction standards which according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) often includes standards concerning the proper use and application of building adhesives, cement, masonry, roofing materials, thermal insulation, and especially plywood and other types of lumber (Construction Standards, 2013).
The tort action of “interference with Contractual Relations allows for a plaintiff to be able to recover damages that are based on the claim that a defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s contractual relations. The factors of an intentional interference with the contractual relations claims are that first, the valid contract made between the plaintiff and a third party, and secondly the defendant’s knowledge of the contract. Third, the defendant’s intentional acts designed to produce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship, fourth, the actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship, and lastly the damage resulted.
As cigarette smoking increasingly becomes legislated and criminalized, it seems to me the nation is moving in a wholly inappropriate direction. If there was a single lesson to be learned by the great failure of Prohibition in the early 20th century, it is that morality, or choices people make regarding substances, may not be successfully legislated. The billions spent annually in the “drug war” equally attest to this reality. It is one thing for a society to generally disapprove of kinds of conduct in which people use control substances. A culture will inevitably come to conclusions regarding the rightness of such behavior, and this is a natural process. At the same time, the imposition of these views carrying into the law and actually penalizing others is both unconscionable and unreasonable. The former is supported by the fact that criminalizing such conduct violates the rights of the individual, who has the freedom to pursue a course potentially dangerous to their health; the lack of reason is in play because, as history has repeatedly shown, such criminalization merely enables black markets and generates other kinds of crime, and usually of more severe natures.
There are three arms of government namely legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative consists of congress; house of the representatives and senate. It is also known legally as the legislature within a conceptual framework of the deliberate assembly. This body has the power to amend; pass and repeal laws. These laws are usually known as legislations or statutory laws. According to parliamentary system of governance the legislature is supreme (United Nations Development Program, 2013).
The current legal issue that interests me is the child right debate that has been going on for sometimes in the country. The law defines a child as any person below the age of eighteen unless in such situation that the child enters a jurisdiction that adulthood is defined earlier. The child right has been defined as human right s in which very special attention is placed on the protection that is given to minors. While other rights entitled to children like the right to education, food and health are very vital in ensuring that the kids are not neglected by some careless parents (Bandman, 2009). Children have the right to associate with both parents even as they grow up. This law requirement often puts parents who have undergone very painful divorce in very awkward situations. The parents may not wish to see each other.
What was the difference between the first and the second sniff?
In the two set ups the first and the second sniff, the dog is found to have falsely responded to narcotics. Occasionally the difference between the two set ups is brought about by the ingredients for making methamphetamine which was noted.
Case A: Joint Tenancy/Right of Survivorship
The law on adverse possession specifically states the emergent possibility of people [more than one] owning a single property. In events like this, the share of property only becomes transferred to the other owners once there is an occurrence of death. This is termed as the right of survivorship. the survivors of the property then would share a specific division of the properties involved. In the case of Barney’s property, which is shared along with his friends, the situation is rather crucial. Relatively, the law as a legal owner of the land recognizes the supposed ‘illegal tenant’ in the property and the house established in it.
Originally from Nepal, I moved with my family and grandparents to the U.S. at the young age of only 13. Like my sisters, I also moved to a boarding house at the age of 3 and did well in academics because you study at least 6 hours every day at boarding houses. When I moved to the U.S., it was also the first time in 11 years that I had moved back home to live with my family. As a result, I finally regained the freedom to do as I wished which I didn’t have at the boarding house. The distractions many teenagers face also negatively affected my academic performance and at one time I was almost convinced that high school will be the end of my academic career. I moved to Boston soon after finishing high school but the realities of the real world soon became apparent and I enrolled in the Associate Program in Criminal Justice at Montgomery College. I did not only do well in academics but also actively participated in co-curricular activities including founding the Asian Club and becoming its first President. I graduated from Montgomery College with 3.1 GPA and transferred to University of Maryland, University College.
Major corporations and manufacturers have a social and ethical responsibility to protect the environment from contamination from possible mishaps related to their business operations. However, there are cases where this type of protection has been compromised and has caused literal and perceived disastrous consequences such as in the cases of the BP oil spill and the Alumina, Inc. environmental discharge compliance violation. With these, there are legal issues involved that must be addressed.