A state's legislature recently passed a law that requires doctors to show women images from sonograms, play fetal heartbeats aloud and describe the features of fetuses at least 24 hours before abortions. There are exceptions in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity and for women who travel great distances to a doctor. Discuss the following: (1) Who has standing to sue to challenge the law? (2) What legal causes of action may be asserted against the state agency to challenge the law? (3) What legal philosophy best supports the law? (4) What legal philosophy best challenges the law? (5) What sources of law are relevant to this issue? (6) Where might the lawsuit be brought?
Review the article, The Deadly Choices at Memorial, by Sheri Fink and address the following questions (Limit your total response to no more than 3 pages):
- How does the article illustrate the difference between law and ethics? Give specific examples.
- Using specific examples, explain how the article illustrates the following ethical principles:
- Utilitarian Ethics
- Deontological Ethics
- Egocentrism
- If the plaintiffs of one of the victims sued, where would the lawsuit most likely be filed?
- What would be the primary legal causes of action?
- Does Dr. Pou have any legal defenses?
Attorney Robert Jones was in the process of conducting a deposition of Dan Davis, an accountant regarding a malpractice case. During the deposition he asked Dan if he had ever had an affair on his wife. Dan's attorney objected, stating that such a question was not relevant. Mr. Jones told Dan to answer the question. Dan responded, stating that he "would not answer the %$## question!" Jones at that point believed that Dan made a motion to hit him, and responded by punching Dan and breaking his jaw. He later communicated to a colleague that Dan was an incompetent accountant who exploited uneducated clients charging them large fees to file their 1040ez. He concluded his statement by saying "that is just my opinion of course". Discuss all the relevant legal issues.
Review the Kelo case that you read earlier and address the following:
- Why do the plaintiffs in this case have standing?
- How does this case illustrate the principle of stare decisis?
- Using the ethical principles of utilitarianism and deontology make an argument in favor of the plaintiffs and one in favor of the defendant.
- Identify the sources of law that are relevant in this case.
- Discuss the jurisdictional issues. Explain how this case could begin in state court and conclude in federal court.
A recent accident involving comedian Tracy Morgan resulted in his bus being rear ended by a Wal-Mart 18 wheel vehicle. It appears that the passengers were not wearing seat belts. Based on what you've learned thus far in this course, address the following questions:
1. If Wal-mart is sued, what will most likely be the plaintiff's cause of action?
2. What would the plaintiffs have to prove to win their case? (Be sure to address each element.)
3. What appropriate defenses might be asserted by Wal-mart?
4. What damages might the plaintiffs seek?