Free Essay

Summary Judgment

In:

Submitted By sparty1986
Words 3221
Pages 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISCTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ESTATE OF ROLAND ROHM, by its Personal
Representative, Geraldine Livermore,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 1:04-CV-552 Hon. Richard Alan Enslen
DANIEL LUBELAN, individually, JOHN JULIN, individually, JERRY ELLSWORTH, individually, STEVE HOMRICH, individually, DAVID
BOWER, individually, jointly and severally,

Defendants.
_______________________________________/

Of Counsel:

HILL AND ASSOCIATES, LLP DeClercq Druminski & Perlman
James D. Hill (P88332) Anthony J. DeClercq
Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff
161 N. Clark St. 55171 Pacific Ridge Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Macomb, MI 48042
(913) 706-9986 (586) 321-7630
JamesDonaldHill@gmail.com decler16@msu.edu

January 12, 2002

DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities........................................................................................................ii
Issues Presented...............................................................................................................1
Statement of Facts...........................................................................................................1
Summary of the Argument..............................................................................................3
Standard of Review.............................................................................................3 I. Argument.........................................................................................4

To defeat a government employee’s qualified immunity, the Plaintiff must prove there was a violation of a constitutional right and that the right that was violated was clearly established. It is undisputed the suspect raised his gun and aimed at officers. It is undisputed that the officers believed they were acting lawfully. Are officers who react to a threat posed by a suspect if they believe they are acting lawfully entitled to qualified immunity?

1. None of the Defendants Violated Rohm’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights........................................................................5

2. Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Without Determining Whether a Constitutional Right was Violated.............7

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)........................................................................4, 7

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)..........................................................4, 7

Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004)................................................................................4

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)..................................................................3

Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999)......................................................................................7

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)..............................................................................5, 7

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)..............................................................................4

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) ..............................................................................7

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (1999)...................................................................................7, 8

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).....................................................................5, 8, 9, 10

6th Circuit Cases

Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594 (6th Cir 2000).......................................................................8

Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117 (6th Cir 1991).................................................................8

Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004).....................................................................3, 4

Other Circuit Cases

Priester v. Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (C.A.11 2000)..........................................................7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.........................................................................................................................3

Constitutions

U.S. Const. amend. IV..............................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 31, 2001, Roland Rohm (“Rohm”) and Thomas Crosslin (“Crosslin”) failed to appear at a scheduled court hearing and subsequently a felony warrant was issued for each of their arrests. (Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report, p. 1). The charges stemmed from an ongoing two-year investigation of Rohm and Crosslin, which related to the trafficking of drugs during music festivals that took place on Crosslin’s Rainbow Farm Campground (“RFC”), located in Cass County, Michigan. (Exhibit B, Zangaro Dep Tr., p. 6). On the same day the felony arrest warrant was issued, Rohm and Crosslin burned down all of the buildings on RFC except the residence, wherein they barricaded themselves from the police to avoid arrest. (Exhibit C. Lubelan Dep. Tr., 20).
An armed standoff ensued over the course of Labor Day weekend. During this standoff, Rohm and/or Crosslin shot weapons at a news helicopter, a police airplane, and a Light Armored Vehicle (“LAV”) being used by police. (Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report, pp. 1-2). The Michigan State Police (“MSP”) Emergency Support Team (“EST”) and the FBI were both asked to assist with the standoff. On September 3, 2001, an FBI agent shot and killed Crosslin near the residence while Rohm remained inside. (Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report, p. 2). In the early morning hours of September 4, 2001, a negotiation team was able to discuss and agree upon a peaceful means of surrender by Rohm to occur at 7:00 a.m. (Id.).
Around 6:00 a.m., the North side of the RFC residence began burning. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., 72). A short time thereafter, Rohm exited the building wearing camouflage combat fatigues with war paint on his face and wielding a long gun. (Id., 73-74; Exhibit E, Autopsy Report Spectrum Health p. 2). Defendants Lubelan and Julin were located at a perimeter position observing Rohm from a distance. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., 15). Defendants Homrich, Bower, and Ellsworth, as part of the arrest team, were mobilized in the LAV soon after Rohm exited the residence. (Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report Document 66, p. 2-3). In order to communicate between the LAV and other members of the EST through their radios, Homrich and Bower needed to use their radios outside of the LAV roof hatches. (Exhibit D, Bower Dep. Tr., 12-13). These positions exposed Homrich and Bower from mid-abdomen up to the top of their heads as they approached Rohm’s position. (Id., 16). Homrich and Bower also helped navigate the LAV through the smoke, fire, and difficult terrain on the way towards Rohm. (Exhibit D, Dep. Bower Tr., 12-13, 26). Additionally, they were asked to provide top security and surveillance (protect inside officers from an attack through the hatches) while they were outside of the hatches. (Id.) While the LAV was approaching Rohm’s position, Ellsworth was consistently instructing Rohm to surrender and put down the weapon over the loudspeaker of the LAV. (Exhibit F, Ellsworth Dep. Tr., p. 30).
During the time the LAV was approaching, Lubelan watched Rohm and the LAV from his perimeter position. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., 52-64). Rohm stayed in his same location, but he was searching and pointing his long gun in multiple directions. (Id.). Lubelan noticed officers were exposed through the top of the LAV was moving closer to Rohm’s position. (Id., 75). He also saw Rohm act is if he knew where the LAV was coming from. (Id.). Lubelan saw Rohm bring the weapon up into full aim at the LAV. (Id.). In order to eliminate the threat to Bower and Homrich, Lubelan fired a bullet at Rohm from his long gun and it Rohm in the left center mass. (Id., at 77). This gunshot wound ultimately caused the death of Rohm. (Exhibit E, Autopsy Report Spectrum Health p. 2).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Government employees are entitled to qualified immunity when they have not violated a constitutional right nor have they acted in a manner they reasonably knew to be unlawful. In this action, the evidence proves Rohm had already established himself as a threat. Therefore, when Rohm threatened police officers by aiming his gun at them, Lubelan was not violating Rohm’s constitutional right and Lubelan was well within the confines of the law to eliminate the threat posed to the officers in the LAV. The undisputed evidence shows there was no violation of Rohm’s rights, and all Defendants reasonably believed they acted lawfully. The Plaintiff is unable to establish either of both required elements of the qualified immunity test to defeat qualified immunity and, therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.
Standard of Review
Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to the Supreme Court in, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986), “the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff, the non-movant in this case, must present enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that would require a determination by the fact finder. Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 885 (6th Cir. 2004). This is a burden which Plaintiff will not be able to meet. A genuine issue of material fact is any factual dispute that has a tendency to change the outcome of a case under the governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The showing of a mere existence of some alleged factual dispute is not enough by itself to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Summers, 368 F.3d at 885. To prevail, “there must be [sufficient] evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 at 252.
Argument
I. To defeat a government employee’s qualified immunity, the Plaintiff must prove there was a violation of a constitutional right and that the right that was violated was clearly established. It is undisputed the suspect raised his gun and aimed at officers. It is undisputed that the officers believed they were acting lawfully. Are officers who react to a threat posed by a suspect if they believe they are acting lawfully entitled to qualified immunity?

Qualified immunity functions to shield public officials from liability when their conduct does not violate a person’s established constitutional rights and, if the official knew of the right, then qualified immunity would not shield the official from liability. Harlow v. Fitzgerld, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The two pronged test used to determine if a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity is: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated, and (2) whether that right has been clearly established. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987)). 1. None of the Defendants Violated Rohm’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that it is “[t]he right of the people to be secure…against all unreasonable searches and seizures….” U.S. Const. amend. IV. It has been well established that individuals have a constitutional right to be free from excessive force during an arrest. See, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). Moreover, all claims regarding whether or not officers used excessive force should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard. Graham, 490 U.S. at 395. This is particularly the case when use of deadly force is used to effectuate a seizure. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7 (1985). The judgment of officer actions in uncertain and tense situations should be determined from a reasonable officer’s perspective on the scene. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-99.
The use of deadly force is only constitutionally permissible if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others….” Garner, 471 U.S. at 11. The Supreme Court has suggested three factors to consider to determine the reasonableness of force used during an arrest: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether a suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of police or others, and (3) whether the suspect actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. If an officer had probable cause to believe there was a threat of physical harm to an officer, or if the officer’s actions were reasonable, then no violation of the Fourth Amendment will have occurred.
In the case at hand, the Defendants’ use of deadly force against Rohm was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard. The differences between the facts in Garner and the facts of the Rohm seizure are stark. In Garner, the Supreme Court declared the killing of a non-dangerous young, unarmed suspect attempting to flee a possible burglary scene by the Memphis police was unconstitutional. Garner, 471 U.S. at 21. In the Rohm seizure, the MSP had been in a standoff for four days, with armed suspects. (Exhibit F, Ellsworth Dep. Tr., p. 20). When Rohm left the house, after he had negotiated a peaceful surrender, he carried a long gun with him and aimed it at approaching police officers (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., p. 77).
The factors suggested by the Supreme Court to determine the reasonableness of force lay the groundwork for this Court’s determination. First, the crime at issue originally involved drug trafficking, but quickly escalated when Rohm and his accomplice shot multiple times at police vehicles while resisting arrest (Exhibit B, Zangaro Dep Tr., p. 6). Second, Rohm posed an immediate threat to the safety of police as evidenced by his exiting the house with a long gun and aiming it at the LAV where police officers were exposed. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., p. 73, 74). Finally, Rohm had been actively resisting arrest by holing himself up in his residence for four days and actively participating in keeping police away. (Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report, pp. 1-2). Most importantly, the amount of force used during this arrest was necessary to eliminate the threat posed to officers on the scene.
Looking at Lubelan’s actions, and in particular his perspective of the situation, Lubelan was justified in using deadly force. Lubelan glanced at the LAV and saw an officer exposed through the top hatch. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr., p. 73, 74). He then looked back towards Rohm who aimed his gun in the direction of the LAV. (Id.) Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the factors mentioned above, it is obvious, and Lubelan admits, that he shot Rohm to eliminate a severe and immediate threat posed to Bower and Homrich. (Id., at 75).
In sum, the Defendants all acted reasonably given the totality of the circumstances. Moreover, a reasonable officer in the same position of Lubelan would have used deadly force to eliminate the threat Rohm posed to Bower and Homrich. There was no constitutional violation when the Defendants seized Rohm through deadly force since Lubelan was justified

2. Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Without Determining Whether a Constitutional Right was Violated.

In Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), the Supreme Court overturned Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (1999), which required qualified immunity to be assessed in a two step process. Previously, a court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity “must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999). Under the Pearson Court’s holding, a court may skip ahead directly to determine whether there was a “clearly established right”.
The Supreme Court explained the term “clearly established” in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987), when the Supreme Court stated, “The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” In explaining why it is important for the qualified immunity standard set forth in Graham to be able to adapt to the circumstances in light of ever changing law, the Supreme Court stated:
Graham does not always give a clear answer as to whether a particular application of force will be deemed excessive by the courts. This is the nature of a test which must accommodate limitless factual circumstances….Qualified Immunity operates…to protect officers from the sometimes “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,” Priester v. Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 926-927 (C.A.11 2000), and to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206, (2001).

In the case at hand, and in light of the fact that the Sixth Circuit has upheld qualified immunity in multiple cases involving officers believing their actions were lawful, all Defendants should be granted qualified immunity. Defendants Ellsworth and Lubelan were both specifically asked about their actions. Defendant Ellsworth, as the highest ranking officer, stated that the initial reason for trying to contact Rohm was because he had an opportunity to travel west off of the property toward other residences. (Exhibit F, Ellsworth Dep. Tr. p. 41). For Ellsworth and his arrest team, this would have been unacceptable and would have brought danger to the surrounding community. Therefore, as the director of actions of his team, a reasonable person in Ellsworth’s position would consider his instructions to be lawful. Defendant Lubelan was asked more directly whether he believed he was justified shooting Rohm, and he responded, “Yes” because he did not shoot Rohm until Rohm presented a threat to the officers and aimed a firearm at them. (Exhibit C, Lubelan Dep. Tr. P. 41-42).
Since all of the Defendants were acting under the command of Ellsworth in what they believed was a lawful attempt at arresting a criminal, they should be entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, Ellsworth and Lubelan alluded to the facts that their actions were justified. None of the Defendants believed they were about to break a law, nor did they actually break any law. All of the Defendants should be summarily entitled to qualified immunity regardless of the determination of whether a right was violated.

CONCLUSION
Due to the fact that all Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants also request that this Honorable Court assess costs against Plaintiff for Defendants’ reasonable expenses incurred, sanction Plaintiff for continuous pursuit of a frivolous lawsuit, and for such further relief that this Honorable Court deems to be fair and just.

Respectfully submitted,
HILL AND ASSOCIATES, LLP
By: /s/ James D. Hill
HILL AND ASSOCIATES, LLP
James D. Hill (P88332)
Attorney for Defendant
161 N. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60601
January 12, 2002 (913) 706-9986

Exhibits Attached

Exhibit A, 9/04/01 Police Report Document 66
Exhibit B, Zangaro Dep Transcript
Exhibit C, Lubelan Transcript
Exhibit D, Bower Transcript
Exhibit E, Autopsy Report Spectrum Health
Exhibit F, Ellsworth Transcript

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Lubelan was video interviewed by Detective Zangaro and was quoted as saying, “And all of a sudden, he noticed where the noise and the headlights were coming from, and he poked his head up like this. The truck came out and started to come around the side of the house there. And he brought the weapon up, he brought it down, and then he brought it back up into a full aim at the front of the vehicle there. And it was at that time I discharged my long rifle…” (Id., 77).
[ 2 ]. In Pearson v. Callahan, the Supreme Court adjusted the mandated two-step test used to evaluate when a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Instead, courts may now look directly to either prong of the test to determine if a public official is still entitled to qualified immunity. 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
[ 3 ]. These cases include, but are not limited to: Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594 (6th Cir 2000); Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117 (6th Cir 1991).

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Nadel Et Al V Burger King Corp

...prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Emil moved for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. BK also moved for summary judgment and pointed to evidence in the depositions that appellants knew the coffee was hot and that coffee was purchased and served as a hot beverage. It also contended under the circumstances that Evelyn's and Paul's actions were intervening, superseding causes precluding any actionable negligence on its part. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Christopher Nadel received second degree burns from coffee spilling on his right foot purchased at Burger King by his grandmother Evelyn Nadel. The Nadel’s brought suit against Burger King and franchise owner Emil, Inc, for product liability for a defectively designed product and for failure to warn of the dangers of handling a liquid served as hot as their coffee. The court granted both the Burger King owner and Burger King Corporation request for motion of summary of judgments. The Nadel’s appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on the products liability and related punitive damage claims. Issues of fact remained as to whether the coffee was defective due to the heat at which it was served and whether an adequate warning existed. Because the alleged failure to warn involved a product, not premises, summary judgment was properly granted...

Words: 1465 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Mgmnt 520 Week 3 Devry University

...What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. 119 Ohio App.3d 578 (1997) 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) In order for a party to establish or prevail for a motion for summary judgment. They need to have sworn, certified, authenticated by affidavit. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) 1. Paul Nadel and Evelyn Nadel ordered coffee and breakfast on the morning of December 1993 2. Paul Nadel turned left spilling hot coffee on his sons foot that caused 2nd degree burns. 3. Burger King manual read that the coffee was to be served at One hundred seventy-five degrees. 4. Medical records were true copies of what was received through discovery. 5. No warning label on the coffee container. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to cope adequately with the mental distress engendered by the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment with respect to this claim”. They...

Words: 753 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Nadel V. Burger King

...1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points). Trial court made the decision 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) c. This is not a negligent infliction...

Words: 332 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Nadel V. Burger King

...1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points). Trial court made the decision 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) c. This is not a negligent infliction...

Words: 332 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Case Research Paper

...Case Research Assessment Baker College Ruiz v. Safeway is a case involving both a Tort; a civil wrong that has caused someone else to suffer harm, and negligence also known as professional malpractice; the failure to meet a standard of conduct that is recognized by a profession (Freedictionary, 2012). Ruiz v. Safeway was filed by Michael and Lydia Ruiz against Safeway, Inc. under business code 25602.1 and it was eventually argued in First Appellate District, Division Five, Sonoma County, Super.Ct.No. SCV-245045 (Law.com, 2012). Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz’s complaint against Safeway involved the death of their son, Alexander Ruiz. Alexander was killed when, Dylan Morse, an 18-year-old alleged drunk driver struck his car. Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz wanted to hold Safeway responsible because, shortly before the accident, a Safeway clerk sold alcohol to Mr. Morse’s passenger, Ryne Spitzer (Law.com, 2012). On February 13, 2009 Morse and Spitzer made plans to attend a frat party. They both drank beer and rum until the party was broken up by the police around midnight. Morse and Spitzer returned to their dorm until Spitzer suggested that they buy more beer. Morse agreed and they arrived at the Safeway around 2 am. Upon entering the Safeway the two proceeded to the beer aisle and then went to check out. At checkout the clerk, Amy Gonzalez, who had 12 years of experience, asked for proof of age to purchase the alcohol. Spitzer gave her a California driver’s license that indicated that he was...

Words: 2118 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Mgmt 520 Weekly Assignments

...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...

Words: 1632 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Mgmt 520 Weekly Assignments

...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...

Words: 1632 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Mgmt 520 Weekly Assignments

...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...

Words: 1632 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Torts and Personal Injury Scenerio

...judge asks you to prepare an essay, explaining to her why, under Illinois law, she should grant or dismiss the motion for summary judgment. Please help the judge. CASE SCENERIO: The plaintiff Alan was trying to catch a plane at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. He knew that he was late for his plane and so, he was running through the airport as fast as possible. Unfortunately, Alan does not see the banana peel that was lying on the floor in the middle of the concourse. He slipped on the banana peel and went sliding across the floor. He banged his head on a metal counter and suffered a severe head injury. Alan now files a lawsuit against the airport, which, we will assume, is in charge of maintaining the concourse, alleging negligence on the part of the Airport. A subsequent investigation revealed that the banana peel was brownish when Alan slipped on it. Alan states that he has no idea where the peel came from and why it ended up where it did. The Airport moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Alan has not alleged any evidence of negligence on the part of the airport. The Airport claims that it has no idea how the peel got there, but it could have been dropped a moment ago by another passenger, and that Alan can't disprove this possibility. The issue that must be decided is whether the airport’s motion for summary judgment should be granted or dismissed. Alan bears the burden of proving that the banana peel had in fact been lying in the floor...

Words: 956 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Mgmt Case 3

...APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY 2009-Ohio-1734; 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1469 April 13, 2009, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Case No. 07CV69537. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant personal injury victim filed suit against appellee store alleging that it was negligent in its cleaning of a coffee spill, upon which she slipped and fell. The store filed a motion for summary judgment. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) granted summary judgment for the store. The victim appealed. OVERVIEW: The victim argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider the incident report and corresponding witness statements. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by disregarding the document due to its lack of authenticity. There was no indication that the document, purported to be an employee witness statement, was sworn or certified, nor was there any evidence presented to establish its authenticity by affidavit. Further, the incident report, and the alleged corresponding witness statements, did not meet the admissibility requirements of Civ. R. 56, and therefore, were not entitled to consideration by the trial court for summary judgment purposes. Finally, summary judgment was properly granted. Because the victim could not identify or explain what caused her to slip and fall as...

Words: 3758 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Thompson vs Cloud

...LIPEZ, Circuit Judges. Damon M. Seligson, with whom Dinicola, Seligson & Upton, LLP was on brief, for appellant, cross-appellee. Christopher R. Largay, with whom Largay Law Offices, P.A. was on brief, for appellees, cross-appellants. After Michael Thompson purchased a multimillion-dollar oceanfront property in Bar Harbor, Maine from Nancy Cloud and Michael Miles, he discovered a number of problems with the property that required significant expenditures to repair. He brought this suit to recover damages for those repairs, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.1 The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Maine's implied warranty of habitability did not apply under the circumstances of this case, and that defendants had no duty of disclosure. The district court also entered judgment on the record for the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees. Plaintiff now appeals and defendants cross-appeal. We affirm the district court's decisions on all counts, albeit employing slightly different reasoning. I. In October 2008, appellant Thompson purchased a home in Bar Harbor (called “Seascape”) from appellees Miles and Cloud for $2.9 million. Miles and Cloud originally purchased the land for a home in 2000 and subsequently had Seascape constructed there. The pair lived at Seascape during the summer seasons between 2002 and 2004, and then listed the property for sale. While the property was listed...

Words: 4725 - Pages: 19

Premium Essay

Business Needs and Wants

...1. What must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgement? (3 points) In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that it appears from the evidence, when viewed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY Supreme Court 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The plaintiff’s child was burned by coffee received at a restaurant, the coffee was placed in a holder that spilled causing a burn on the foot of one of the children. Nadel was driving his kids to school. His son Christopher was in the front seat next to him; Nadel's mother, Evelyn, was a passenger on the other side. They stopped at Burger King (BK) and received two cups of coffee fitted with lids and placed in a cardboard drink container, which was handed to Evelyn. Somehow, as Nadel drove away, the coffee got spilled on Christopher, who suffered second degree burns on his right foot. Nadel sued for breach of a warranty of merchantability, breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular...

Words: 512 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Courtroom Observation Omalleys Tavern

...Courtroom Observation An Assignment Submitted by Sara Cotleur Liberty University Online Class Business 301-D04, Section 201320, Spring 2013 Deborah White vs. John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern Introduction The case in question is case number 82A04-8876-CV-285, between Deborah White as the plaintiff and John Daniels and O'Malley's Tavern as defendants before a mock U.S. District Court, in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff’s attorneys are Amanda Babbit and Jackson Walsh while those of the defendants are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter. Mr. and Mrs. White went to O'Malley's Tavern on the Saturday, July 28, 2007, a tavern in Gary, Indiana. Edward Hard, a former fiancé of Mrs. White was also patronizing the same tavern and on seeing the two, he approached them to convey his congratulations on their recent marriage and then went back to his seat and resumed his drinks. The first defendant, Mr. Daniels, was the only licensed bartender working at O'Malley's Tavern. Mrs. White and Mr. Daniels confirmed Mr. Hard consumed four to six shots in about twenty-eight minutes after the arrival of the Whites. Thus Mr. Daniels had constructive knowledge of Mr. Hard’s intoxication. On consuming his last alcoholic drink he tried to leave and in the process tripped on a cue stick as he stood up but picked himself up. Mr. Daniel did not notice this stumbling incident and thus was not aware of the intoxication level of Mr. Hard and could not be said to have...

Words: 1619 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

1244 Stock

...United States Tax Cases (1913-1999), [97-2 USTC ¶50,905], U.S. District Court, Dist. Ore., Dennis R. Maze and Beatrice V. Maze, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant , Summary judgment: Genuine issues of material fact: Capital gains and losses: Small business stock:, (Oct. 10, 1997), (Oct. 10, 1997) [97-2 USTC ¶50,905] Dennis R. Maze and Beatrice V. Maze, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant U.S. District Court, Dist. Ore., Civ. 96-1000-JE, 10/10/97 [Code Secs. 1244 and 7402 ] Summary judgment: Genuine issues of material fact: Capital gains and losses: Small business stock: Evidence.--The government was denied summary judgment on the issue of an individual’s entitlement to a deduction against ordinary income for a loss on the worthlessness of small business stock because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the stock’s qualification as Code Sec. 1244 stock. The government contended that the taxpayer would not be able to substantiate the three requirements for obtaining tax benefits under Code Sec. 1244 . However, with respect to the “small business” requirement, the record supported an inference that the aggregate funds of the corporation that issued thestock did not exceed $1 million on the issue date. With respect to the requirement that qualifying stock be issued for money or other property, the taxpayer produced enough evidence to raise a question of fact as to whether he gave the corporation money...

Words: 3548 - Pages: 15

Free Essay

Bosse V. Brinker

...dispatcher. In the course of the high-speed chase, the teenagers collided with a cement wall and were injured. The pursuing patron left the crash scene area and was never identified. Bosse sued the restaurant owner, Brinker Restaurant Corp. doing business as Chili's Grill and Bar, for damages related to the crash. Bosse argued that the actions of the parties resulted in the Chili's patron being converted to an agent of Chili's, that he conducted his chase as an agent of the restaurant, and that the restaurant should be liable for the consequences of his negligent or reckless pursuit. Brinker filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. Page 309 SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The Massachusetts Superior Court granted Brinker's motion for a summary judgment. The court held...

Words: 382 - Pages: 2