...PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Client Interview – To be used for Unit 4 and for Legal Memorandum (Units 6-9) Notes from Client Interview: Natalie Attired 23 years old Grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico Attended private schools through 12th grade After graduation in 2007, spent a year in Europe, mostly Paris Returned from Europe in 2008 and enrolled at New Mexico State University, planning to major in Early Childhood Education. After a couple classes, found out that she didn’t like working with small children and reconsidered her career plan. While she attended NMSU, she often went to a local bar called Skully’s, which catered to a mix of college students and members of the local biker community. At Skully’s, she met a 30 year-old man named Zeke Teller, who was a member of the Los Calambres Motorcycle Club. Zeke had three children from three previous relationships. In early 2009, Natalie began riding on his motorcycles and after a few months of hanging around the club became Zeke’s “old lady.” After attending NMSU for one year, Natalie dropped out of school in May 2009 and began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, NM. Biddy’s has been in business for over 20 years, and is run by Biddy Baker, age 60. The restaurant serves tea, sandwiches, scones, and desserts. No alcohol is served in the establishment. Biddy’s evaluates waitress’ performance every three months. Natalie received four evaluations while she worked...
Words: 1044 - Pages: 5
...Unit 3 Assignment Lerin Martin Kaplan University PA205 April 15, 2014 Zelma M. Mitchell., Plaintiff V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Defendant 89 NM 575,555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: On June, 4, 1974, the Plaintiff, Zelma Mitchell lost her job due to misconduct. She was working at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment benefits shortly after on June 12, 1974. Mrs. Mitchell was denied unemployment benefits since she was terminated due to her misconduct. Mrs. Mitchell was not happy with this answer and filed an appeal, which she was able to reinstate her unemployment benefits starting August 28, 1974. Her Employer, Lovington Good Samaritan Center submitted another appeal which once again, disqualified Mrs. Mitchell from receiving unemployment benefits. Unwilling to settle, Mrs. Mitchell applied for certiorari, and her benefits were reinstated by the District court on January 16, 1976. Issue(s): Did Mrs. Mitchell’s actions in fact constitute misconduct according to 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 Rule(s) of Law: “The term ‘Misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law.” (Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, 1976) Due to this, the court reviewed the case of Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) and used their findings to formulate their own definition of Misconduct which is as follows: “‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such...
Words: 472 - Pages: 2
...terminated on June 4, 1974 from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC. for alleged misconduct. June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits and was denied her benefits. July 24 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal. The issue of this case is whether the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct if so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 The term “misconduct” is not defined in unemployment law for New Mexico. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The final decision was to reinstate Mitchells Commission due to the fact that her conduct was never severe enough to utilize the “last straw” doctrine. Using the “last straw” method an employer can rely on the doctrine for terminating an employee, where the termination is justified by a series of incidents of poor performance, followed by a final incident showing a blatant disregard for the employer's interests. In this case the Source: Kaplan University PA205 Unit 3 assignment case Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan center Inc.,1976 Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center. INC. , 555 P.2d 696 (N.M....
Words: 264 - Pages: 2
...Unit 1 Assignment PA205-03 UNIT 1 ASSIGNMENT CASE STUDY QUESTIONS 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. My understanding of the case study is that the identifiable state statute is section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” 2. Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch of government created the state statute. 3. The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The parties involved in the court case in the above passage are Gregory Lee Johnson and the State of Texas. 4. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. Most authority = Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Middle authority = Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Least authority = Dallas County Criminal Court 5. Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing the oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 6. What effect did the United States Supreme Court’s decision have on the Texas...
Words: 308 - Pages: 2
...PA205-03 UNIT 1 ASSIGNMENT CASE STUDY QUESTIONS 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. My understanding of the case study is that the identifiable state statute is section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” This statute helps to prohibit misuse and abuse of the state and American flag. 2. Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch, the Senate and House of Representatives, of government created the state statute. 3. The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The parties involved in the court case in the above passage are Gregory Johnson and the State of Texas. 4. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. Most authority = Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Middle authority = Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Least authority = Dallas County Criminal Court 5. Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing the oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas...
Words: 489 - Pages: 2
...Ashley Waldo Kaplan University PA205-01 Unit 1 Writing Assignment 1.) The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. The case study references Texas Penal Code section 42.09(a)(3) which prohibits the desecration of a venerable object. 2.) Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch, the Senate and House of Representatives, of the government created this state statute. 3.) The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The state of Texas and Gregory Johnson were the parties’ involved in this court case. 4.) The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. The case was heard by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which has the most authority, the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District with the middle amount of authority, and the Dallas County Criminal Court with the least amount of authority. 5.) Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas V. Johnson...
Words: 500 - Pages: 2
...Unit 3: FIRAC Magdalene Renee Farmer Kaplan University Prof. Wendi Cline PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing October 14th, 2012 Case Brief 1: Citation: N.M. 555 P.2d 696 Facts: Ms. Mitchell was a nurse’s aide that works at Lovington Good Samaritan Center. While working at the center, Mitchell was terminated for alleged misconduct. Mitchell then filed for unemployment and was denied. Issue: With all the events that Mitchell display at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC results in her termination. Are Ms. Mitchell actions at her employment constitutes misconduct, under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. Rule: rule 10.9 Analysis: The term misconduct was not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law, but Ms. Mitchell’s action display different; name calling, disobeying orders, rude and disrespect. Lead to the ruling that Ms. Mitchell did display misconduct and “last straw” would not be used and was rejected. Conclusion: The court is reversed, and the decision is up to the Commission and reinstated. Case Brief 2: Citation: N.M. 764, P.2d 1316 Facts: Ms. Rodman was a security guard at Prebytian Hospital for eight years. After being terminated, Ms. Rodman filed for unemployment just to be denied for misconduct. Issues: The incident that happened on February 15th, was consider the “Last straw”. Ms. Rodman was sent and was later terminated. Ms. Rodman conduct was to not break the rule, but to not cause a scene. Rule:...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Unit 1 Case Study In 1984, the Republican Party met in Dallas, Texas for their national convention. President Ronald Reagan, seeking a second term in office, was to be officially named the Republican Party’s candidate for President. During the convention, opponents of Reagan’s policies organized a political protest in Dallas, which attracted over 100 protestors. Among the protestors was Gregory Lee Johnson. As the demonstrators marched through the streets chanting slogans, another protester handed Gregory Johnson an American flag that had been taken from a flagpole at one of their protest locations. Upon reaching Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused the flag with kerosene and set it ablaze. Johnson and his fellow demonstrators circled the burning flag and shouted anti- American slogans. No one was injured or threatened with injury by Johnson’s act, but many who witnessed it were deeply offended. Dallas police officers arrested Johnson and charged him with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” Johnson pleaded not guilty in Dallas County Criminal Court, and after a trial was found guilty of violating the statute. He was sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2,000. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13, 1984). Johnson appealed his case to the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District, claiming that the statute under...
Words: 538 - Pages: 3
...Three Briefs Helen Mayes Kaplan University PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing June 26, 2012 Citation- Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Facts- 1. Plaintiff (Mrs. Mitchell) was terminated from her job at Lovington good Samaritan Center, Inc., due to alleged misconduct. Plaintiff then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. Due to the finding from the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission Mrs. Mitchell was denied benefits for seven weeks. Plaintiff appealed the decision and was granted her money. The Unemployment center appealed that ruling and the first ruling went back into effect. Mrs. Mitchell appealed that ruling applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision. The Plaintiff’s money was reinstated to her by the District Court. 2. Mrs. Mitchell was terminated from her job on June 4, 1974. On April 2 and April 3, 1974, Plaintiff went to work out of uniform. The first day she was told to go home and change she refused to do so, however, on the second day she did as she was told. Then on May 15, 1974, the plaintiff was singing while working, it was reported as unethical and time- consuming. Another incident happened on May 24, 1974. Mrs. Mitchell was told to change from medications to the floor routine. She was told why she was being switched but she was not co-operative. From that day unit June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell refused to do her job. On June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell went to...
Words: 1976 - Pages: 8
...Client Interview & Case Briefs; Analogizing/Distinguishing Unit 4 Assignment Kimberly Glackin PA205-04 Kaplan University Professor Hermes September 14, 2012 Case Brief #1: Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976). Facts: The plaintiff was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. on June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment benefits and was denied seven weeks of benefits by the Unemployment Security Commission deputy. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal which in turn the Appeal Tribunal overturned the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were restored on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974 the Center didn’t agree and appealed the decision made by the Appeal Tribunal to the Commission. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reestablished the seven week exclusion period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision to the District Court of Bernalillo County. The District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. Issue: The issue is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not clear in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that in a previous case no statutory definition of misconduct existed. They verbalized a definition for such however the Supreme Court of New Mexico accepts the definition...
Words: 2045 - Pages: 9
...<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html><head><title>Business Policy And Strategic Management - G. V. Satya Sekhar - Google Books</title><script>(function(){(function(){function d(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){b=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[b,c]};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a=new d;window.jstiming={Timer:d,load:a};if(window.performance&&window.performance.timing){var a=window.performance.timing,c=window.jstiming.load,b=a.navigationStart,a=a.responseStart;0<b&&a>=b&&(c.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),c.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt",a),c.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT), c&&0<b&&(c.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.chrome.csi().startE),c.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",b))),null==a&&window.gtbExternal&&(a=window.gtbExternal.pageT()),null==a&&window.external&&(a=window.external.pageT,c&&0<b&&(c.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.external.startE),c.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",b))),a&&(window.jstiming.pt=a)}catch(e){}})();})(); </script><script>(function() {var preloadImg = document.createElement('img');preloadImg.src = 'http://books.google.com/books?id=nYNPtZNnx9YC&pg=PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1vGx3jE1apd2pjAdwnJ_85sunasA&w=685';window['_OC_preload_image_url']...
Words: 27178 - Pages: 109
