Juliana Goncalves
Chapter Assignments
Week 1
Chapter 1:
Question 1-2
No federal statute may conflict with the U.S Constitution. The U.S Constitution is considered supreme law of the land.
Federal statutes must follow the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, no state constitutional provision can violate the U.S Constitution. In a case where a federal statute is indeed constitutional under the U.S Constitution, then it will be superior to the state constitutional provision.
A state statute trumps the common law of that state as it is supreme within state's borders. The state statute in this case is considered binding authority on a common law decision.
No state statute or local ordinance may violate the U.S Constitution. The U.S Constitution is binding on all other federal and state law, whether it is statutory-or common law-based.
Question 1-3
Stare decisis is a latin term meaning to stand on decided cases. It refers to judicial practice of basing new decisions on cases on former decisions or precedents. The doctrine of stare decisis requires judges to follow the precedents established i their jurisdictions or geographic areas in which a court or courts apply the law. This is based upon two principles. The first is decisions made by higher courts are binding on lowering courts. Second, a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a compelling reason to do so. For instance, in 1896 for Plessy v. Ferguson states could continue racial segregation in schools under the separate but equal doctrine. This decision became precedent and binded on all lower courts, federal and state.
Chapter 2:
Question 2-1
A person having sufficient stake in a matter carries a standing to sue the relevant party on the matter in the courts. The county "I" turned the gravel pit situated i front of the Jack and Maggie Turton house to landfill site. The landfill site accepts many kinds of trash that can cause harm to the environment. The sufficient stake here refers to the act of causing sufficient harm or potential harm due to actions of other parties. After revision of this case, this means that there is sufficient stake to sue the county. One could say that the house owners having the standing to sue the county, because the house owners are living in the nearby area of a landfill site and thus have the possibility of harm.
Question 2-2
A federal court is allowed to hear a case that is based upon diversity citizenship and if the amount in controversy totals to over $75,000. For this particular case, Marya Callais a citizen of Florida and the firm is from Georgia, the controversy total amount is $300,000 which is over $75,000. This case can be held in federal court based on diversity. For the state of Florida, the accident happened in that state so they would have interest in protecting their citizen. This conclusion is based upon Florida having jurisdiction over the defendant. Georgia can also hear the plaintiff, by filing a complaint in Georgia. Because the firm is located in Georgia, they are subject to state jurisdiction. However due to the accident occurring in Florida, it is probably not Callais's first option to bring suit.
Chapter 3:
Question 3-4
In this case, the district court denied T-Mobile's motion to compel arbitration. This was affirmed by the Washington State Supreme Court. The district court stated that the clause compelling arbitration was not valid as unconscionable. It would very costly for an individual consumer to pursue legal course of action. That makes the arbitration agreement a violation of public policy and so is void and unenforceable.
Question 3-5
Arbitration is the process of pertaining to which the parties involved in the dispute, seek judgement for their underlying differences from an impartial group or person appointed by the statutory provision through mutual consent of the parties involved. The motive behind this arrangement for both the disputing parties is to reach a mutual consensus for a solution.
Chapter 4:
Question 4-3
In my opinion it was an ethical responsibility for the pharmaceutical companies to limit the amount of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine that they put on the market, especially because they knew about this issue. I read a few articles about this case and it looks like the counties have sent notices and warnings to Pfizer, but they were ignored. As a consequence of this case, the Senate passed a law that limits the quantity of cold medicine and allergy medication a person may buy.
Question 4-4
The managers and owners are members of top management had few towards their company as well as employees. Their act represents the company and all employees follow their lead, especially their code of ethics. It is important that before an employee follows the company's policy, a manager, or owner must observe the ethics and norms of that particular act.
Question 4-9
The drug Trovan caused life-threatening side-effects on the animals, including joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth, and liver damage. They did not get consent to administer the children, nor did they explain to them the side effects, and they did not tell the children that there was an effective drug being administered on the same site. The result led to eleven children dead, and others were left either blind, paralyzed or had brain damage, thus leading to a lawsuit against Pfizer.
The ethical reasoning is a process in which an individual links his or her moral convictions to a certain situation. Therefore, any ethical or moral person would not have allowed an administration of a drug knowing the side effects, along with not explaining them beforehand. Pfizer could have easily waited until he had perfected the drug so that side effects that were experienced were avoided, which would saved him and the company a lawsuit. He could have also gotten consent, and told them the side-effects, which would ensure the company was not liable for anything that happens to the children because they knew the risks.
Chapter 5:
Question 5-1
A Georgia statute that requires the use of contoured rear fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within its state lines, when thirty-five other states make it legal to use straight mudguards and Florida explicitly mandates the use of straight mudguards,would violate the commerce clause. This hypothetical question is based on Bibb v.Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. [359 U.S. 520, 79 S.Ct. 962, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1959)], in which the United States Supreme Court concluded that a similar statute placed an
unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. In Bibb, the Court acknowledged the
fact that a state that insists upon a particular regulation may sometimes place a substantial burden of delay and inconvenience on interstate commerce. As in Bibb, the burden placed on interstate commerce by this Georgia statute would outweigh Georgia's interest in regulating its highways. According to the facts in this hypothetical, the contoured mudguard is not clearly superior in safety to the straight mudguard.
Question 5-4
Gunasekera's "case or controversy" lies within his liberty interest in his reputation as an employed faculty member of a state supported institution of higher education [assumption] which is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the institution took "action" against him, the full rudimentary demands of fair play under due process required notice and opportunity to be heard before his liberty interests in his employment could be affected absent some exigent circumstances which would otherwise allow a temporary suspension. I would note that if the university is a private institution; then due process is not required. Only some procedure required between the employee and employer or a collective bargaining agreement.