Premium Essay

Eilers V Coy Brief

In: Social Issues

Submitted By darkkmano
Words 368
Pages 2
Eilers v Coy Brief

1) Title and Citation: Eilers v Coy 582 F. Supp. 1093 (Minn. 1984) 2) Identity of the Parties: Plaintiff- Williams Eilers (24 year old male) a. Defendants- Plaintiff’s parents, relatives, and deprogrammers 3) Procedural History: Plaintiff accused defendants of false imprisonment and the violation of his civil rights during the attempt deprogramming. Plaintiff motioned for directed verdict. Motion for directed verdict granted. 4) Facts: Family claims in a letter dated 08/16/82 the plaintiff allegedly threatened to commit suicide. On 07/26/82 Joyce Peterson (psychiatric social worker) interviewed the plaintiff and reported to the parents of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a threat to himself or others. On Monday 08/16/82 Plaintiff and wife abducted from a clinic in Winona Minnesota by their parents to deprogram them from the religious group Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Plaintiff held against his will at Tau Center, restrained, and monitored by hired security. Instructions were given to not allow the plaintiff to leave the facility. After several days of resistance plaintiff appeared to consent. On Saturday 8/21/82 during transport to Iowa City, Iowa for further deprogramming the plaintiff escaped out the moving vehicle, and was subsequently helped by civilians who summoned police. 5) Issue: The claim of false imprisonment and violation of plaintiff’s civil rights during attempted deprogramming. Is the application of the defense of necessity applicable in this case? 6) Holding and rule derived from case: Yes, the directed verdict request from the plaintiff was granted as it was determined the defendants were not acting out of necessity. 7) Reasoning: Court stated the defense of necessity was not applicable in this case. Despite the defendants claiming they feared for the well-being of the…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Akers V. Sedberry Brief

...Akers(P-employee) v. J. B. Sedberry, Inc.(D-bank) Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville 39 Tenn. App. 633, 286 S.W.2d 617 (1955). SM: The UCC is not involved in this case. The SM is regarding the offer and possibility of an acceptance of an employee’s resignation. F: Sedberry (D), through majority shareholder Mrs. Sedberry, entered into a contract with Akers (P) whereby Akers would serve as Chief Engineer for five years. Sedberry entered into a similar five year employment contract with Whitsitt (P). Akers and Whitsitt were to perform their duties at the Jay Bee Manufacturing Company in Tyler, Texas. Mrs. Sedberry later purchased stock in Jay Bee owned by Jay Bee’s general manager, who was then replaced by Sorenson. Ps had difficulty working with Sorenson and Jay Bee owed large amounts of money to a bank whose officials were concerned the company would fail under Sorenson. The bank addressed its concerns to Ps, who then met with Sedberry without Sorenson’s knowledge to discuss possibilities for the refinancing of Jay Bee. As a show of good faith, Ps offered their resignations on ninety days notice; Sedberry refused. Ps returned to Jay Bee with instructions; however, the next day Mrs. Sedberry informed Ps that their resignations were accepted effective immediately. Ps sued D for breach of their employment contracts and contended that Mrs. Sedberry had refused their resignations and that no offer remained open. The trial court awarded damages......

Words: 516 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case Brief Summary: Marbury V. Madison

...Case Brief Summary: Marbury v. Madison Robert L. Broadwater PAD 525 Strayer University Dr. O’Neal July 09, 2012 Summary of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Facts The incumbent president Federalist John Adams was defeat in the presidential election by Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. The day before leaving office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. This was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term. William Marbury (Plaintiff) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (Defendant), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” Ironically, John Marshall later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court......

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Brief Mcdonald V Chicago

...Facts: In 2007 the Supreme Court decided in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the individual citizen has the substantive right to bear arms. The case overruled a handgun ban in the Washington D.C. area and was unique as the District of Columbia is under federal jurisdiction, so the handgun ban was automatically considered a federal. However, after DC v. Heller, Chicago residents sued arguing that they the same right to own handguns for self defense, but were kept from doing so due to Chicago’s law. Chicago residents asked the court to declare Chicago’s law ban of handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s ordinance was purely local, not having the same complicating facts as Washington D.C thus the case is different in McDonald v. Chicago than it is from D.C v. Heller. Issue: Chicago’s law doesn’t totally prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued against that as the law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Then residents were permitted to buy guns from an list with approved firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. (Pg. 8) Both the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court followed previous Supreme Court precedent in saying the handgun laws of Chicago were legal. (Pg. 10) The petitioners then asked the Supreme Court to hear their case and their request was granted. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs in a 5-4 decision. The plaintiffs won......

Words: 525 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Case Brief Stanford V. Kentucky

...I. Style of the case: Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 2969, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1989). II. Statement of Facts: Kevin Stanford committed the murder of Barbel Poore in Jefferson County, Kentucky on January 7, 1981, when he was approximately 17 years and 4 months of age. Stanford and his accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized Poore during and after their commission of a robbery at a gas station, where Stanford shot her pointblank in the face and then the back of her head. A Kentucky juvenile court conducted hearings to determine whether he should be transferred for trial as an adult under Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. § 208.170. That statute provided that juvenile court jurisdiction could be waived and an offender tried as an adult if he was either charged with a Class A felony or capital crime, or was over 16 years of age and charged with a felony. The juvenile court found certification for trial as an adult to be in the best interest of petitioner and the community. Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death. III. Procedural History: This case was first tried in a Kentucky juvenile court and Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. IV. Issues in the case: These two consolidated cases require us to decide whether the......

Words: 379 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Palsgraf V. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief

...Palsgraf v. Long Island Analysis and Case Brief By: Jeffrey Boswell, Steven Casillas, Antwan Deligar & Randy Durham BMGT 380 Professor Eden Allyn 26 May 13 Facts The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, filed a suit against the Long Island Rail Road Company. The plaintiff claimed the Long Island Railroad Company’s negligence resulted in injury to her person. A passenger was attempting to board a moving train and lost his footing. The man looked as though he was going to fall. A guard reached out to help the man onto the train and another guard attempted to push him onto the train from behind. The man was carrying a box that was covered by a newspaper. As the guard reached to catch the man, the box was dislodged and fell on the tracks. Once the box hit the tracks it exploded and caused a chain reaction. On the other side of the platform the explosion caused scales to fall on the plaintiff. Issue The court must decide if the plaintiff’s rights were violated. Since she filled a suit of negligence against the Long Island Railroad Company she must prove four things. She must prove that the defendant owed her a duty of care. Second, she must prove that the defendants breached that duty. Third, the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that she suffered a legally recognizable injury (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2012, p. 136). Ruling The appeals court reversed the...

Words: 790 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Case Brief: Orlando V. Cole

...Case Brief Orlando v. Cole (2010) FACTS Joseph M. Orlando filed a complaint for slander against fellow attorney, Garrick F. Cole. Allegedly, Orlando suffered harm to his reputation as a lawyer when Cole made false comments about his role in an investigation involving a 17-year-old student and a high school basketball coach, Thomas A. Atwater. At the time, Atwater was unrepresented and approached Orlando to admit that he had in fact sexually assaulted the high school student. He signed an affidavit and confessed to the police, while Orlando spoke to the media and gave them a copy of Atwater’s affidavit. Cole, who was now representing Atwater, told the same reporters that the affidavit was “inaccurate” and Orlando’s actions were “fraudulent” and “deceitful”. ISSUE Are the comments made by Cole reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation? Are Cole’s statements ones of fact, opinion, or a combination of both? RULE “A statement is defamatory in the circumstances if it discredits a person in the minds of any considerable and respectable class of the community.” “The determination whether a statement is one of fact or opinion is generally considered a question of law” because “under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea”. APPLICATION In this case, the court concluded that the comments made by Cole are susceptible of a defamatory connotation because the terms used include “inaccurate”, “fraudulent”, and “deceitful”- which all......

Words: 344 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case Brief: Brady V. Maryland

...Case Brief Citation: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962) Procedural History This case is on appeal from an affirmed decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. It was currently on remand only for the purpose of punishment. Issue Does withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant violate that defendant’s due process rights? Under the circumstances of this case, did limitations on new proceedings as to punishment only violate defendant’s due process rights? Holding The Supreme Court held that, in general, withholding evidence favorable to the defendant as to either guilt or punishment violates a defendant’s due process rights irrespective of the intentions of prosecutors. But for the purposes of this case, no, the defendant’s due process rights were not violated when his new trial was restricted to punishment only, as the evidence in question only pertained to his relative culpability and appropriate punishment, not his underlying guilt. Facts Brady (Petitioner) and accomplice, Boblit, were both convicted in a Maryland Court of the same murder (in the first degree) but in separate trials. At trial, Brady admitted his assistance in the planning and commission of the crime, but denied having personally committed the killing. Defense counsel admitted his client’s guilt at trial, explaining to the jury that they should find him guilty but not impose the death penalty due to his lesser culpability. Brady’s attorney, prior to trial, requested access to all of the......

Words: 508 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Miranda V Arizona Brief Irac

...Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations. (2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? (3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. (4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it......

Words: 295 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Lefkowitz V. Great Minneapolis Case Brief

...Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Case Brief Judicial History: Facts: Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (D) published advertisements in a newspaper for a sale on fur coats, mink scarves, and a lapin stole. Each of the advertisements indicated that the sale items would be sold on a first come first served basis, stated the quantities of each item available, and stated that they would be sold for one dollar each. Lefkowitz (P) was the first customer to present himself and offer the one dollar price per the terms of the advertisement. The defendant refused to sell the sale items to Lefkowitz and told him that according to the “house rules” the offer was intended for women only. Issues: Under what circumstances does an advertisement for the sale of goods constitute an offer? Ruling: Great Minneapolis Surplus Store contended that a newspaper advertisement constitutes a unilateral offer which may be withdrawn without notice. The general rule is that advertisements are invitations to contract rather than offers; for contract formation purposes the prospective purchaser makes the offer and the seller can accept or reject the offer when received. An advertisement construed in such a manner does not become a contract for sale until a buyer’s offer is accepted by the seller, and the advertised terms can be modified or revoked without notice. Analysis: The test is whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested. Whether......

Words: 288 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Feldman V Google Brief

...Feldman(F) v Google(D) Inc. (2007) United States District Court F: In Jan 2003, plaintiff (firm owner), purchased advertising from defendant’s “AdWords.” Whenever certain words would be searched on Google, plaintiff’s ad would appear and the plaintiff would be charged by each click (pay per click). The highest bidder for keyword would have ad placed at top of search page words of drugs. Allegedly, the plaintiff was the victim of cliff fraud, in which competitors or pranksters click on the ad, driving up cost to advertise, and that the defendant required him to pay for all the clicks. Plaintiff claims that there are programs to locate fraudulent clickers, not that the defendant was aware of the tick clicks. The defendant charged the plaintiff over $100,000 from January 2003-December 2005 and has moved to seek damages, relief of profits the defendant procured, and relief of money from fraud clicks. I: Is an online clickwrap contract enforceable when the agreement has to be accepted in order to initiate a contract, referring to form selection clause, and when it does not specifically define a price? H: Yes. When the party has been given reasonable notice and it is clear they must click on the agreement to move forward and when the contract defines a method to determine price then the contract is valid. R: The Court relies on the precedent of Specht v. Netscape Comms Corp., in which the court determined that “clickwrap agreements are considered to be writings because......

Words: 448 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Helling V. Casey Case Brief

...Title: Helling v. Carey 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974) Procedure: The plaintiff Helling, a patient, appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeals (state of Washington) affirming the judgment of the trial court for defendant ophthalmologists in a medical malpractice action involving the ophthalmologists' failure to timely administer a glaucoma test. This case was heard in the Supreme Court in Washington state. Issue or issues: The issue was whether the ophthalmologists' compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology, that did not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age, insulated them from liability. Facts: The patient, who was 32 years of age when she was diagnosed with glaucoma, sued the ophthalmologists, alleging that she suffered severe and permanent damage to her eyes as the proximate result of the ophthalmologists' negligence in failing timely administer a pressure test for glaucoma. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the ophthalmologists. Holding: The Washington Supreme Court held, as a matter of law, that the reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple, harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that, in failing to do so, the defendants were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable. Analysis: After years of......

Words: 535 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Case Brief Levi. V. Abercrombie

...Levi Strauss & Co. V. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 633 F.3d 1158 (2011) FACTS: Levi Strauss has stitched a design on the back pockets of its jeans since 1873. Levi Strauss holds multiple federally registered trademarks on this bow-shaped design, an “Arcuate”. They are required to actively monitor competing designs and enforce its trademark rights. In 2005, Abercrombie & Fitch attempted to register a “mirror” image stitching design for use on certain products. Levi Strauss argued that this design should be barred because it could potentially cause confusion with and dilute the Levi Strauss Arcuate mark. While the ninth circuit appeal was pending, Abercrombie announced the shutdown of the Ruehl brand and the Ruehl retail stores. Abercrombie then proceeded to file a new trademark-registration application with the PTO. This time they were attempting to register the same mirror image with a different brand name, Gilley Hicks. These would be sold at different prices, and through different channels than their former Ruehl line. After this, Levi Strauss attempted to have Abercrombie agree to amend the pleadings to add Gilley Hicks, or say that any injunction occurred would extend to include the Gilley Hicks line as well; Abercrombie refused. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: On July 20, 2007, Levi Strauss sued Abercrombie in the Northern District of California after learning that Abercrombie was selling products with this mirror image on a line of jeans- the “Ruehl”. The district court held......

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Brief Smith V Stolberg

...Part 1 Smith v. Stolberg, 256 Mich. App. 231, 103 N.W. 2d 586 (1998). Facts: Stolberg pushed Smith into a bench during a court appearance. Stolberg claims Smith pushed him into the bench whereas his back hit the bench causing him to launch forward onto the floor. Smith claimed that Stolberg spit and raised his hand at him and he pushed him as self-defense. Smith filed a complaint against Stolberg for assault, battery, and negligence. The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint for negligence only. The plaintiff is essentially claiming an intentional, offensive touching. Therefore, the plaintiff’s proper cause of action is intentional tort of battery, not negligence. The trial court granted in favor of the defendant in regards to plaintiffs negligence claim. Issue: Can Smith be held liable for assault and battery since Stolberg amended his assault and battery complaint? Rule: The intention to do harm is the essence of an assault. In actions to recover assault does not apply to actions to recover for assault and battery. Battery is a general intent offense. The defendant does not need to intend specific harm, but only commit an act of unwanted contact. If the wrongdoer only intended an assault but did not intend to actually hurt the person, but yet made contact with the person, both an assault and a battery have occurred. The plaintiff does not have to prove an actual physical injury. The plaintiff only needs to prove an unlawful act, MCL 600.5805. Once there......

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Hampton V. Dagenhart Brief

...George Michael Thompson Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court of the United States, 1918 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed2d. 1101 Votes: 8-1 Majority Opinion: Justice Day Dissenting: Justice Holmes Not Participating: None Facts: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 banned the shipment of products made in factories that employed children under the age of 14 or allowed children between the ages of 14-16 to work more than eight hours a day. Roland Dagenhart an employee along with his two minor sons in a North Carolina cotton mill filed a complaint in district court seeking to enjoin the act which he viewed was unconstitutional. The district court held that it was unconstitutional, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Statue or Provision of the Constitution in question: The Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 Questions: 1. Is the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 unconstitutional? Holding: 1. Yes Reasoning: The Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing this act as the issue of child labor was a purely local matter to which the federal government had no authority over. Commerce consists of intercourse and traffic the making or mining of goods is not commerce, and considering that the goods being shipped were of themselves harmless Congress could not clearly state they were regulating commerce when passing the act. The Court also stated that even thought it can be claimed that differing child labor laws among the states creates unfair competition...

Words: 392 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Suffrage Case Brief: Minor V. Happersett (1875)

...Suffrage Case Brief: Minor v. Happersett (1875) Issue: Are women citizen under the Constitution? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, does citizen has privilege and immunities clause to vote? Or, is the Fourteenth Amendment only confined the right of suffrage to men? Reasoning: As the result of discussion, women are the citizen since they are born and naturalized in the United States. The Supreme Court explains that the state and federal law have treated women as citizens since the beginning. Next, the court claims that women have no right to vote. Because in the Constitution, none of the Amendment had written down who should have the right of suffrage. The court explains that the power of giving citizens right to vote is belong to the States not the court. The court would change the law only if the law is determined wrong. Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment is not only confined the right of suffrage to men alone. And the court explains that the men did not have any an advantage over the women. Every law is exactly applied to both of them. Facts: In the United States, all citizens can have their right to vote and no one, neither government, can deny their rights of being citizen. During the 1870s, women still did not have their right of suffrage. The women are the citizens of the United States since their birth, and the federal laws have treated them as citizens. Men have no advantage over women, neither the law. Therefore, women should have all the privileges and......

Words: 471 - Pages: 2