Question 1

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 this law? (2) What legal issues might be raised as a basis to challenge this law? (3) What legal philosophy best support this law? (4) What legal philosophy best challenge this law? (5) What source of law(s) are relevant to this issue?

Standing to Sue means “A legal requirement that an individual must have a sufficient stake in a controversy before he or she can bring a lawsuit (Miller & Cross, 2014). In simple words it means who ever is filing the lawsuit should have suffered or must have been threatened by a harm. Also a person can have standing to sue on behalf of another individual for example a mentally incomepetent person or for a minor. It also requires that the controversy needs to be substantial than a hypothetical contoversey i.e. Justiciable Controversy.
In this Sonogram case the doctors are responsible and liable to perform an ultrasound and describe about the fetus and medical risks involved with them before they get an abortion. I think both the patient and the doctor or a group of doctors can chaallenge this law as they all have the standing to sue in this case.
The legal philosophy that best supports this law is the legal positivism of taking every word of it and following it.
The legal philosophy that challenges this law is forcing the doctors to say unnecessary things that violates the 1st Ammendment right.
There are four primary sources of law in the United States The U.S. Constitution, the Statutes or laws passed by Congress and state leislatures, Regulations created by administrative agencies and Case Laws. In this case I see couple of sources of law. First is the violation of the 1st Ammendment by forcing the physicians rights of saying things that they don’t want to say and do. Second one is the presence of Statutory law as it was passed by the state legislature.

Question 2

ABC is a publicly traded company, specializing in mortgage loans. In 2012, ABC made a number of adjustable rate mortgage loans to applicants with very low credit scores. ABC streamlined its application process such that they did not require proof of employment or many other necessary documents to properly assess the risk. Senior leaders knew they would sell the notes within 60 days and didn’t care about the risk. During a recent audit, it was discovered that ABC had destroyed loan records, misrepresented info to its board, and had cooked its books to look better to its investors. Address the legal and ethical issues surrounding ABC’s practices. Be sure to address specific ethical principles and any specific laws that may be applicable.

Business Ethics is required and very important for the growth of accompany. It focuses on the right and wrong behavior in the business world and how businesspersons apply moral and ethical principles to situations that arise in the workplace (Miller & Cross, 2014). Ethics is a very important in making business decisions.
A business should evaluate the following while making these decisions:
1. The legal implactations of each decision
2. The public relations impact.
3. The safety risks for consumers and employees
4. The financial implications.
The above analysis will help the firm in making decisions that wont just increase the profit but will also reflect good citizenship.
The unethical corporate decisions made by ABC company will negatively affect the consumers, community and the society. It will negatively impact the reputation of the company and the individuals who were running this company. ABC may have increased its profits in the short run but in the long run their unethical decisions is going to get them into lawsuits, large settlements and bad publicity which will get them into huge loses.

Business Ethic is consistent only with long run profit maximization and is the best way to go. I think ABC company has committed a criminal act by destroying loan records, misrepresenting info to its board, and making the books look better to its investors. This falls under the Criminal Law the branch of law that defines and punishes wrongful actions committed against the public.

Question 3

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 breaking his jaw. He later communicated to a colleague that Dan was an incompetent account 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 the all the relevant legal issues.

I think this case contains legal issues that involve both criminal and civil law. While the deposition was going on with Dan Davis the accountant he responded to Mr. Jones using foul language and motioning as if he was going to hit Robert Jones after
Dan was asked a question that he didn’t like which made him more mad. This derives the situation as an act of assault with foul language. Thinking that he was about to get punched Mr. Jones responded by punching Dan and breaking his jaw. Again we see an assault happening here. But this may vary in different courts, in the criminal court this situation will be taken as an assault, but in a civil court it may look just as a self-defence case which he applied to cover himself from the attack that was going to happen. Later on at work Jones started spreading news about how Dan was incompetent at his work who exploited uneducated clients charging them large fees to file their 1040ez, which could damage his reputation. But at the end Jones also says that it was just his opinion which I don’t think will get him into trouble, he was just trying to defame Dan more out of jealousy I would say which could lead to write-ups or disciplinary actions. This one case can give different prospective for each situation.

Question 4

Dr. Sleepy is a trauma trained physician. While pulling call at Doctor’s Hospital he heard a page Code Blue, which means someone is going into cardiac arrest. Doctor’s Hospital like all hospitals is required to have a physician on call at all times to cover certain types of emergencies. When Dr. Smith responded to the page he found Dan Smokealot lying on the floor. Sleepy immediately began to try and administer CPR but it had been so long that he could not quite remember the proper steps. Also, due to his size when doing chest compressions he accidently cracked Dan’s chest cavity, resulting in internal bleeding. Dan subsequently died and his wife files a lawsuit. Discuss all the relevant legal issues to include: cause(s) of action, and relevant defenses. Be thorough in your response, particularly as you address legal causes of action.

Dr. Sleepy is a trauma physician, and a code blue patient died accidentally.
The cause of action here is Negligence – Medical Malpractice: Dr. Sleep while doing CPR accidentally cracked Dan’s chest cavity as he did not remember the exact steps that had to be taken.
A professional individual who has knowledge, skill or training more than an ordinary person, the individuals conduct must be consistent with that status. Because professionals are required to have a certain level of knowledge and training and should have higher standard of care. This violation or negligence towards a client will lead into Malpractice. Medical Malpractice is said to be rising each and every day. A wrongful death lawsuit can be filed on behalf of the deceased plaintiff by the immediate family like spouse, kids or parents. The doctor is not the only one who gets in trouble for these kinds of malpractices; the hospital is responsible for this too.
I am not sure if there is a relevant defense for Dr Sleep, some states have “Good Samaritan” laws, where any healthcare professionals like doctors aids someone in an emergency situation then he or she will be protected from civil liability if anything goes wrong during the rescue. But I don’t think this applies to Dr. Sleeps situation as he was the on call physician at Doctor’s hospital and was responding to a code blue.
Tort law can be applied in this case for compensation. The purpose of tort law is to compensate for legally recognized injuries resulting from wrongful acts (Miller & Cross, 2014). I see two physicians’ names Dr. Sleep and Dr Smith, not sure if one was a passerby and the other was the physician on duty.

Question 5

Review the Kelo that you read earlier and address the following:

1. Why do the plaintiffs in this case have standing?
2. How does this case illustrate the principle of stare decisis?
3. Using the ethical principles of utilitarianism and deontology make an argument in favor of the plaintiffs and one in favor of the defendant.
4. Identify the sources of law that are relevant in this case.
5. Discuss the jurisdictional issues. Explain how this case could begin in state court and conclude in federal court.

New London was founded in the seventeenth century; the city suffered a huge decline in the economy in the twentieth century and was designated as a “distressed municipality” in 1990 by a state agency. This case Kelo V. City of New London was heard in the Connecticut Supreme Court. One of the owners and the lead plaintiff Susette Kelo who has a standing in this case sued the City in the Connecticut courts, due to the fact that the property was taken for the economic development of the state but was never used or developed. The city had a plan to create jobs by opening a development plan in the distressed areas with restaurants, a marina with a large portion for commercial company to develop.
This case defines the principle of stare decisis a principle where courts follow the rulings of previous cases as precedent in their opinion (Miller & Cross, 2014). It meant that the current Court was bound by Berman v. Parker, and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff decisions unless if there was a strong legal reason to change the interpretation. The property owners stated that the city had violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which gave a gurantee that the government will not take private property for public use without giving a just compensation for it or give it to another private company.
According to the utilitarian ethical principle point of view, actions should be taken in such a way that would give the best result for a maximum number of people. This would justify the taking of Kelo’s property as it would benefit the community in a huge way.

The sources of law that I see in this case is The US Constitution and Statutory Law. The US Constitutional states the rights of individuals in the takings clause and Statutory law can be seen in the taking of the private property by the city.
Concurrent jurisdiction is the ability to exercise judicial review by different courts at the same time, within the same territory, and over the same subject matter (US Legal, 2001-2015). It means that this case could have been filed in both the State and Federal Court. Ms. Kelo can keep continuing appealing again and again until she is heard by the Supreme Court.

Citation
Miller, R. L., & Cross, F. B. (2014). The Legal Environment Today: Business in Its Ethical, Regulatory, E-Commerce, and Global Setting. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, Eigth Edition.

Definition on Concurrent Jurisdiction (2001 to 2015). Retrieved from US Legal: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/concurrent-jurisdiction/