Latest Posted Questions

Q:

Researchers from a highly respected university reported in a journal article that genetically modified (GM) corn sold by GeneiOrg may pose a threat to human health. The researchers isolated genes that came from GM corn, within the cells of chickens raised on nearby farms. The study was primarily funded by the government’s National Science Agency, although a small portion of funding was provided by Nature’s Defense. Nature’s Defense is a private environmental organization opposed to the use of GM crops. Soon after these research findings were made known to the general public, GenetiOrg’s stock price dropped 13 points. - The study proved that genetically modified crops are harmful to humans to eat.  True  Probably True  Insufficient Data  Probably False  False A sleeping woman was awakened by a dream that she had suffered a painful fall. Later that night her husband returned from a fishing trip that he had taken alone in a rowboat some miles away. His arm had been broken as a result of a fall in his boat. The husband and wife discovered that the accident and dream had happened at exactly the same time - The dream was a chance coincidence that was not really influenced by the accident. 1-Conclusion follows 2-Conclusion does not follow Should the government take over all the major industries in the country? - Yes; the government already operates or controls highways, parks, military forces, and public health services. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Should the government permit imports from unfriendly nations with which there is a significant risk of military conflict? - Yes; even unfriendly nation cannot export products to our nation, it can only generally export them to other nations. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Where legally permitted, should private casinos operate in economically depressed areas? - No; when a casino opens, property crime rates usually increase in surrounding neighborhood without falling elsewhere. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Should our country’s government, and the state and local government, be limited to spending no more than their income from various sources during any given year? - Yes; it would be good for the country’s people to learn to make sacrifices and stop the needless waste brought about by our mode of living. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Should high standards of purity for the nation’s air and water be maintained, even if the result is higher prices to the consumer for electricity and manufactured goods? - Yes; those who demand lower purity standards are concerned mainly with their own short-term profits.  Strong Argument.  Weak Argument. Should the government continue to pay farmers the cost of soil conservation practices on their own land? - No; farmers have historically been a powerful pressure group on congress, but today most of the population lives in cities.  Strong Argument.  Weak Argument. Should the government continue to pay farmers the cost of soil conservation practices on their own land? - No; soil conservation practices are easy and inexpensive; they are likely to more than repay farmers for their investment by increasing the yield, and thus the income, from their land. 1-Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Should our country’s government, and the state and local government, be limited to spending no more than their income from various sources during any given year? - No; such rigid restrictions against even prudent borrowing would seriously limit our growth as nation and create an economic depression. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument. Should high standards of purity for the nation’s air and water be maintained, even if the result is higher prices to the consumer for electricity and manufactured goods? - No; a slight lowering of air and water purity standards will have few ill effects, but further inflation of prices for electricity and manufactured products will prove disastrous. 1- Strong Argument. 2- Weak Argument.

Q:

In May 2009, Bryan Lyles was admitted to the LSU Health Sciences Center and underwent an anterior corpectomy and discectomy surgery. During the procedure, Lyles’s C5 vertebrae was replaced with a Verte-Stack implant. Additionally, an Atlantis Plate was inserted to hold the Verte-Stack in place and promote its union with the C4 and C6 vertebrae. Lyles was discharged the day after the operation after having several x-ray images taken. About a week later, Lyles returned to the hospital, complaining that the condition he had undergone the surgery for had not abated. Additional images of Lyles’s spine were taken, and the doctor who conducted the surgery found slight displacement of the Atlantis Plate but no breakage. Lyles's symptoms showed no improvement, and he eventually underwent another surgery. Regardless of the surgery’s results, Lyles sued MSD, the company that designed and created the Atlantis Plate, for defective design and defect claims under the assertion that the Atlantis Plate had broken. To support his claim, medical experts hired by Lyles alleged that the images taken shortly after the first surgery and after Lyles returned the first time showed that the Atlantis Plate had come apart. The surgical doctor maintained that at no time did the Atlantis Plate break Lyles made his liability claim under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. What kind of evidence would Lyles have to present to satisfy this theory? Do you think Lyles’s expert opinions are sufficient for him to win the case? How did the court rule?

Q:

In 2014, Julie Gerstenecker, who was married to Adam Gerstenecker, had approximately $78,000 of student loan debt. Hearing Julie lament about the interest on her loans, Adam’s mother, Janice Gerstenecker offered Julie an interest-free loan to pay off her student loan debt in return for monthly payments. In September 2014, Julie sent Janice an email with the details of Julie’s student loan debt. The next day, Janice mailed checks covering the full amount of Julie’s debt to the Department of Education Federal Loan Servicing and Sallie Mae. The agreement was not put into writing. In early 2015, Julie and Adam were going through divorce proceedings. An email exchange between Julie and Adam discussing divorce terms indicated that Julie’s monthly payments to Janice would be reduced from $700 per month to $500 per month. In December 2015, after a year of non-payments, Janice sued Julie for breach of contract. In the trial, Janice testified that she had received four checks from Julie before the payments had ceased. Julie testified that she had no recollection or explanation as to why she had sent those checks to Janice. Ultimately, Julie argued that there was no contract between them because “[t]here is no tangible evidence supporting the assertion that Julie intended to agree to pay [Janice] back.” What are the two ways an offeree can manifest intent to enter into the contract? Although there was no explicitly signed contract, what actions by Julie indicate that there was an agreement of the offer? How do you think the court ultimately resolved this case?

Q:

Asbestos, a fibrous type of material once used in insulation products, is now widely known to be correlated with health problems. Walter Brown was exposed to asbestos while he was an Air Force mechanic stationed in Europe and the United States. Additionally, Walter Brown was diagnosed with and died from malignant mesothelioma, a cancer thought to be caused by asbestos exposure. Prior to passing away, Walter Brown brought suit against Lockheed Martin and thirteen other companies in the Connecticut Superior Court, seeking to recover in tort for injuries sustained while working as an Air Force mechanic. Cindy S. Brown, Walter Brown’s daughter, took up the mantle and replaced Walter Brown as the plaintiff after his passing. Lockheed Martin is an American global aerospace, defense, security, and advanced technologies company with worldwide interests. Having physical presence in Connecticut since 1982, Lockheed finally obtained a formal certificate to do business in the state in 1995. The company does not own property in the state but has leased the same space in New London, Connecticut, since 1997 in addition to at least three other properties. Lockheed Martin, citing its status as a federal contractor, removed the case to the Connecticut District Court and subsequently moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Connecticut District Court dismissed the case, and Cindy Brown filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court. Do you think the Connecticut District Court has jurisdiction over Lockheed Martin? Why or why not?

Q:

In 2000, Donald Stern incorporated a startup company named Grail in order to market a new and revolutionary chip design that Stern had invented. While witnesses expressed the view that Stern’s innovation would be the “Holy Grail of memory technology,” the company was unable to find investors, and by March In 2000, Donald Stern incorporated a startup company named Grail in order to market a new and revolutionary chip design that Stern had invented. While witnesses expressed the view that Stern’s innovation would be the “Holy Grail of memory technology,” the company was unable to find investors, and by March In 2000, Donald Stern incorporated a startup company named Grail in order to market a new and revolutionary chip design that Stern had invented. While witnesses expressed the view that Stern’s innovation would be the “Holy Grail of memory technology,” the company was unable to find investors, and by March 2001, Grail had run out of money. On April 19th, 2001, the following month, Stern met with Ryuichi Matsuo and Kazutoshi Hirayama, two representatives from Mitsubishi. Matsuo signed a nondisclosure agreement which required Mitsubishi “to keep in strict confidence and trust and not use, disclose or make available to others, including any of its affiliates or third parties any ’Proprietary Information’ and ’Company Documents and Materials’ (together ’INFORMATION’) without the prior written consent of [Grail].” In the meeting, Stern showed Hirayama 16 items of proprietary information, including the core concept behind his miracle memory chip, of which Hirayama took extensive notes. Nothing came from the meeting between Grail and Mitsubishi. In 2003, Mitsubishi and Hitachi formed Renesas Technology in a joint venture. Hirayama was one of the employees transferred from Mitsubishi. Stern suspected that Renesas was using his innovations and that Mitsubishi had broken the NDA because of an article he read promoting Renasas’ new technology. In the ensuing 2012 trial, expert witnesses found that “of the 16 items of confidential information disclosed to Mitsubishi, 11 had been implemented” in Renasas’ new technology. On May 16, 2012, the jury found that Mitsubishi had violated the NDA and determined damages to be $123,898,889.00. Mitsubishi has filed an appeal for a new trial to address the damages, which is ongoing now. How would Mitsubishi’s violation of the NDA affect the decisions of other innovative tech companies to approach potential investors?Which aspects of the WH process did Mitsubishi neglect in their decision to break the NDA?

Q:

David Milam, a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity at the University of Kentucky, had leased a room at the fraternity house. University of Kentucky Police Detective John McBride received a tip that Milam was selling marijuana at the fraternity house, so with two other university police detectives, he went to the house to perform a “knock and talk” investigation. The detectives did not have a warrant to search the house. Upon arriving, the officers went to the back door, believing it was the front door. No one responded to their knocking and ringing the bell several times. Deciding that the fraternity house was more similar to an apartment complex than a private residence, they opened the unlocked and slightly ajar door and entered into the foyer, where they announced their presence. Shortly thereafter, another member of the fraternity, Neagle, entered the foyer area from an adjoining room. Without asking him who he was or whether he was affiliated with the fraternity, the detectives identified themselves as police officers and said that they were looking for Milam. After a brief conversation, the detectives followed Neagle up the stairs to the second floor where the individual rooms were located. Once in the stairwell, the detectives could smell burnt marijuana. At the top of the stairwell, Neagli opened the door to the second floor. Neagli identified Milam’s room by pointing, and the detectives then knocked on the door. Milam opened the door, revealing the strong smell of marijuana. A full jar of marijuana was sitting on the coffee table inside the room, in plain view of the detectives. Milam then consented to the detectives’ searching his bedroom. During the search, they discovered marijuana, $1,700, Adderall pills, drug paraphernalia, and a fake driver’s license. Milam was charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled substance within 1,000 yards of a school, third-degree possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. In the trial court, Milam argued that the detectives unlawfully entered and searched the house in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Several suppression hearings were held. Ultimately, the trial court denied Milam’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered in his bedroom. Thereafter, Milam entered a conditional guilty plea conditioned on the appeal of the denial of his suppression motion. Pursuant to that agreement, the Appellant pled guilty to the trafficking charge and was sentenced to one-year imprisonment and three years’ probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Milam’s motion to suppress. Milam appealed again. How do you believe the Kentucky State Supreme Court ruled and why? Be sure to consider the Fourth Amendment in your reasoning.

Q:

The respondent, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, was created as part of a series of accounting reforms in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The board is composed of five members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It was modeled on private, self-regulatory organizations in the securities industry—such as the New York Stock Exchange—that investigate and discipline their own members subject to SEC oversight. Unlike these organizations, however, the board is a government-created entity with expansive powers to govern an entire industry. Every accounting firm that audits public companies under the securities laws must register with the board, pay it an annual fee, and comply with its rules and oversight. The board may inspect registered firms, initiate formal investigations, and issue severe sanctions in its disciplinary proceedings. The parties agree that the board is “part of the Government” for constitutional purposes. Although the SEC has oversight of the board, it cannot remove board members at will but can do so only “for good cause shown,” “in accordance with” specified procedures. The parties also agree that the commissioners, in turn, cannot themselves be removed by the president except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The board inspected the petitioner's accounting firm, released a report critical of its auditing procedures and began a formal investigation. The firm and the petitioner, Free Enterprise Fund, a nonprofit organization of which the firm is a member, sued the board and its members, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the board is unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the board from exercising its powers. The petitioners argued that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contravened the separation of powers by conferring executive power on board members without subjecting them to presidential control. Is the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board constitutional? Why or why not?

Q:

In 2010, a North Carolina state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Lester Gerard Packingham. Elated by the favorable outcome, Packingham posted a note on his Facebook profile, writing “Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks, JESUS!” Shortly after this post, Packingham was arrested. He was arrested for violating section 14-202.5, a statute that made it a felony for a registered sex offender to post to a social networking website known by the sex offender to permit children to maintain personal profiles. Packingham had been on the sex offender registry since 2001. At the time Packingham wrote his Facebook post, a member of the Durham Police Department was investigating possible violations of section 14-202.5. The investigating officer obtained a search warrant and discovered evidence that Packingham had indeed violated section 14-202.5. Packingham was indicted by a grand jury and eventually convicted by a trial court and given a suspended prison sentence. The state never alleged that Packingham had engaged in illicit contact with a minor during the trial or sentencing. Packingham appealed to the North Carolina court of appeals, arguing that the North Carolina Law was unconstitutional because it infringed his First Amendment rights. The appeals court accepted Packingham’s argument and the decision was reversed. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the appellate court. Packingham appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Do you think limiting access to social networking websites such as Facebook infringes a person’s First Amendment rights? How do you think the Supreme Court have decided this case? Why?

Q:

From 2004 to 2010, Edward Weaver was the CEO of Vendstar, a corporation that sold candy-vending machines to approximately 7,000 customers who spent a total of about $62 million on the investments. Although Vendstar’s promotional materials and salespeople represented that the investment opportunities would be lucrative, for the most part, thevending machines would earn Vendstar’s customers almost no money. Customer complaints became so frequent that Weaver assigned a Vendstar employee to respond to those complaints full-time. In the end, many customers lost virtually all of their investments in Vendstar. The size of the investments varied, and the most common transaction involved the victim paying $10,000 for a package that included 30 candyvending machines and an initial supply of candy, although some customers spent significantly more than that. Under the Vendstar scheme, potential customers would respond to Internet or newspaper ads approved by Weaver. Vendstar would mail them a brochure, order form, and certain disclosure documents. The brochure, which Weaver also approved, included claims that the salespeople were “Vendstar vendors themselves” and promised that the investments had “little risk.” Vendstar salespeople would then follow up with customers over the phone. During those phone conversations, salespeople routinely lied to customers, promising them utterly unrealistic earnings and claiming that the investments were sound. Salespeople also falsely stated that they owned their own Vendstar machines, a misrepresentation that encouraged customers to trust them and buy the machines. At trial, victims of the scam testified that those lies influenced their decision to purchase the machines. If customers agreed to purchase the machines, they signed a contract that included the following disclaimers in capital letters: Purchaser understands that seller has no affiliation or financial relationship with professional locating companies and that seller has no involvement whatsoever in securing retail locations. . . . Purchaser and seller agree that this purchase order contains the entire understanding of the agreement between the parties and there is no reliance upon any verbal representation whatsoever. Seller has not guaranteed any minimum or maximum earnings. . . . It is further acknowledged that no statements, promises[,] or agreements influenced this purchase or are expected other than anything contained in this purchase order. . . . What crime do you think Weaver was convicted of? Weaver appealed this conviction. What do you think his argument on appeal was? Do you think his conviction was upheld?

Q:

Adrian Samalia fled a stolen vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. While Samalia successfully escaped, he left his cell phone in the stolen vehicle. Police officers searched the cell phone without a warrant and used the information contained in it to confirm Samalia’s identification. The data from the phone was used as evidence in a trial against Samalia for possession of a stolen vehicle. Samalia moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated when they searched the phone without a warrant. The State contended that the warrantless search was allowed under the abandonment doctrine. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and eventually found Samalia guilty. After a series of appeals, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Under the abandonment doctrine, an individual loses his or her privacy interest in a property if he or she voluntarily abandons it. While Somalia argued that the abandonment doctrine should not be applicable to cell phones because they hold “private affairs,” the Washington Supreme Court ruled that there would be no exception to the abandonment doctrine for cell phones. At this point for the State to prevail, it had to show that Somalia voluntarily abandoned his cell phone. Do you think the cell phone left by Somalia as he ran from the police was voluntarily abandoned? Explain why or why not. How did the Washington Supreme Court rule on this issue and what was its reasoning? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Showing 300 - 400 of 1000
Join SolutionInn Study Help for
Study Help
2 Million+ Textbook Solutions
Learn the step-by-step answers to your textbook problems, just enter our Solution Library containing more than 2 Million+ textbooks solutions and help guides from over 1300 courses.
Study Help
24/7 Online Tutors
Tune up your concepts by asking our tutors any time around the clock and get prompt responses.