Law Case Study

Throughout the year I also worked on several joint investigations with the college admin staff. I consulted about several incidents, providing guidance to the college staff and went over the current laws/case law and trends that we see in the police department. A number of investigation resulted in the arrest and suspension of several students, the investigations ranged from felony menacing, arson, burglary, false reporting, unlawful possession of a Schedule I, forgery, theft, and trespassing. CSPD# 14=33840, 14-39059, 14-38811, 14-49158 14-42299, 14-28740, 14-29855, 14-29672, 14-05129, 14-40941, 14,42514, 15-09836, 15-13581,

There has been a matter at my school that I would like to make you aware of. This matter has several components that may need further attention from our litigation department. Smart Sue has complained about possible drugs intended for distribution both in her classmate’s, Risky Ralph, locker and in his car. This is the culmination of issues between Smart Sue and an afterhours religious group that Risky Ralph leads. After some investigation and applying the ruling from Donovan v Punxsutawney, I have determined that the religious group has not violated the separation of church and state laws which Smart Sue alleges they did. Their club is held after school and any religious materials they hand out occurs during lunch, which is a

I conducted a conference call with Vice President of Claims, Mr. Petro. I advised that overall I found no deficiencies in their management of claims or in their reserve practices, other than the two claims where the adjuster did not comply with Hylant’s reserve protocol. It was suggested that should have a more formalized litigation bill review where someone other than the adjuster review for proper billing and litigation compliance. Mr. Perto believes the current process in place where the adjusters audit the legal invoice is adequate at this time, but will take it under consideration.

3. How could a section 1983 action be brought where an officer in the locker room preparing for off duty accidentally discharged his revolver, striking a custodian? What would be the justification for a lawsuit in this case? The officer was wrong in this accidental discharge. Police are responsible for the fire arm and even if the officer didn’t shoot someone you are supposed to be able to control the fire arm. This was an accident not meant to hurt someone but if you can’t control a gun you shouldn’t be able to carry one. Negligence like this could kill someone on accident. Officers should treat every gun as they are dangerous because like shown in this case they can hurt someone. He could say it was an accident but if I was the custodian

On Wednesday, December 2 at approximately 10 AM I received a call on my cell phone from the vice principal at Toppenish high Mr. E. Romero. He informed me that he had gotten a tip that a student might have a knife in Mr. Alying's room. I meet him at the room that student Robert Bennett was in. We took him to another room where the vice principal and one of the other administrator searched Robert and his bag while I observed. They found a 3 inch folding knife along with a can of chewing tobacco. I escorted the student along with the contraband to the office where I handed him over to the principal Mrs. B. Mallonee so she could handle the discipline of Robert. As of right now Robert Bennett has been suspended until he can have a hearing with

This circumstance supports a finding that Tenants did not reasonably initiate a limited civil case in good faith. (Cf. Balsam v. Trancos, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1104–1105 [finding a plaintiff recovering only $7,000 reasonably initiated an unlimited civil case where they expected to recover more than the small claims jurisdictional limit and sought injunctive relief unavailable in a limited jurisdiction case]; Carter, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1052–1053 [finding a plaintiff recovering only $11,590 reasonably initiated an unlimited civil case where they expected to recover over $25,000, but their ultimate recovery was reduced due to issues of first impression].)

During November of 2012, a parent requested a meeting with the Assistant Principal of Physical Education to object to her child being taught this subject matter. The parent had requested that her child be allowed to “opt-out” of the class completely if the aforementioned content matter that she deemed as inappropriate (based on her religious and moral beliefs) was not removed from the course. Furthermore, the parent argued that the

Assume it is now July 2017, what legal advice would you provide to both Rose and Dennis?

Parental Engagement - The school must ensure that the parent or carer of a child has a right to participate in decisions about their child’s education. So policies that come under this heading would things like Attendance policy; Homework policy and Home-school agreement policy.

“Psychologists must also discuss with relevant parties the extent to which their services will be covered by the individual’s health plan, school district, employer, or others” (Fisher, 2013, p. 279). The involvement of third parties includes employers, HMOs, legal guardians, governing authorities, or individuals who have requested the assessment. There are state laws, ethical standards, and federal regulations that are to be followed regarding third parties and releasing information and documentation to them. If a child is being assessed, then both parents need to give permission for the assessment to occur. Confidentiality is important, and you need to explain the limits of confidentiality in a comprehensible, and straightforward manner. We have to comply with requirements as mandated reporters and report any type of abuse or child abuse. There are limits to confidentiality that include reporting abuse and the assessments involving minors and their guardians accessing the records. Not disclosing certain information to guardians through records or assessments is put in place to protect the minor if child abuse was and/or is

I am almost positive there will come a time that I will encounter a juvenile and his or her parent or guardian begin to argue during a Predisposition Report Interview. When this occurs, I will simply separate them. I will first inquire one of them in a separate room while the other sits out in the lobby area. Once my interview is completed with the first individual, I will then bring the other in to question, leaving the afore mentioned out in the waiting area. If the two still do not comply and continue to be unruly, I will then ask them both to leave and schedule a different time to interview the individuals. If the youth and their guardian continue to cause a scene after asking them to leave, I may then contact a supervisor or even call

One option in the scenario is to tell half of the truth. I’d agree with my partner and say that the suspect resisted arrest. I’d tell the Internal Affairs (IA) investigators that my partner did disregard regulations and rode with the suspect in the backseat but, the suspect seemed depressed and we didn’t want him to hurt himself. When asked how the suspect received his injuries, I’d say I wasn’t paying attention to what was happening in the backseat but his injuries came from resisting arrest. I wouldn’t be confirming or denying what happened. My partner would get away with it and he may think he could attempt this behavior again. I’d be lying under oath but not admitting the whole truth would make it “easier” on my conscience. My

If the school has made reasonable efforts, two attempts to contact in two different methods, to obtain consent from parents for the initial evaluation, the school can move forward with the initial evaluation through utilizing mediation or requesting a due process hearing. They also have the right to not pursue the initial evaluation in specific cases and in others they are not permitted to utilize due process or mediation.

I am the advocate acting on behalf of Angie McSonorous and I would first submit that Angie met the requirements of Section 2 of the University Lecturers (Scotland) Act 1985.

Repeated paragraph 8, the defendants’ lawyer against HCr 1.20 (1); Conduct and Client Care 2.4; Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care 13.10;