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

Closed Memo

...Statement of Facts John and Nathan were dining at a local restaurant owned by Vito. John tells Nathan that he wants to terminate Nathan’s employment contract. Nathan becomes angry and shouts, “You ungrateful louse! To fire me after I built your business – without me, you’d still be a petty thief conning people on the streets!” Nathan grabs his shoulder bag off the table and proceeds to leave. John, thinking that Nathan will hit him with the shoulder bag, grabs the shoulder bag and shakes Nathan in an attempt to calm Nathan down after Nathan becomes frantic. Vito hears the commotion, runs out of his office, and sees John shaking Nathan. Vito runs over, strikes John and knocks him down. Vito takes Nathan into his office and leaves Nathan there alone. The office door automatically locks from the inside and outside and requires a key to open. Nathan sees an unlit inner stairway at the back of the office. Nathan does not dare to venture down the stairway, as he has always been afraid of unlit stairways. Nathan tries to leave the office ten minutes later after he calms down, and discovers that the door is locked and cries for help. Vito hears Nathan but gets distracted by two phone calls requesting dining reservations. After Vito finishes the calls, he returns to the office to release Nathan. Nathan sees John still in the dining room area as he storms out of the restaurant. Issue 1. Does Nathan have a claim of assault against John when Nathan did not have imminent apprehension......

Words: 2250 - Pages: 9