i need someone to do the assignment

User Generated

nuzrq2016

Business Finance

Description

hi

answer the question

you don't have to write long answer

short answer will be enough

Unformatted Attachment Preview

BUSINESS LAW HOMEWORK NUMBER 2 HOW THE CONSTITUTION REGULATES BUSINESS 2-1 English in the Workplace In 1988, as a result of a general election, Arizona added Article XXVIII to its constitution, Article XXVIII provided that English was to be the official language of the state and required all state officials and employees to use only the English language during the performance of government business. Maria-Kelly, an employee of the Arizona Department of Administration, frequently spoke in Spanish to Spanish-speaking persons with whom she dealt in the course of her work. Maria claimed that Article XXVIII violated constitutionally protected free speech rights and brought an action in federal court against the state governor, Rose Mofford, and other state officials. Does Article XXVIII violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not? 2-2 Importing Fishing Bait Thomas owned a bait business in Maine and arranged to have live baitfish imported into the state. The importation of the baitfish violated a Maine statute. Thomas was charged with violating a federal statute that makes it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. Thomas moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Maine statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. Maine intervened to defend the validity of its statute, arguing that the law legitimately protected the state’s fisheries from parasites and nonnative species that might be included in shipments of live baitfish. Were Maine’s interests in protecting its fisheries from parasites and nonnative species sufficient to justify the burden placed on interstate commerce by the Maine statute? Discuss. 1 2-3 Adult Entertainment With the objectives of preventing crime, maintaining property values, and preserving the quality of urban life, New York City enacted an ordinance to regulate the locations of commercial establishments that featured adult entertainment. The ordinance expressly applied to female, but not male, topless entertainment. Adele owned the Cozy Cabin, a New York City cabaret that featured female topless dancers. Adele and an anonymous dancer filed a suit in a federal district court against the city, asking the court to block the enforcement of the ordinance. The plaintiffs argued in part that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. Under the equal protection clause, what standard applies to the court’s consideration of this ordinance? Under this test, how should the court rule? Why? 2-4 Pray Before Meeting Isaiah was the director of the information services department for Polk County, Iowa. During department meetings in his office, he allowed occasional prayers and, in addressing one meeting, referred to Bible passages related to sloth and “work ethics.” There was no apparent disruption of the work routine, but the county administrator reprimanded Isaiah. Later, the administrator ordered him to remove from his office all items with a religious connotation. Isaiah sued the county, alleging that the reprimand and the order violated, among other things, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Is the county liable for violating Isaiah’s constitutional rights? 2 TATOO PARLOR AND FREE SPEECH Background This case involved the intersection of municipal zoning regulations and the right of tattoo artists to ply their trade. After the City denied Plaintiffs a permit to operate a tattoo parlor, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging violations of their rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. City requires some businesses, including pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and body piercing salons, to obtain a Council Use Permit ("Permit") before operating in a commercially zoned area within the City. In July 2008, the Plaintiffs initiated the preliminary review process for obtaining a Permit and formally applied for the Permit the following January. The Board's staff reviewed the application, found the Plaintiffs in compliance with Permit requirements imposed by the City Code, and recommended issuance of a Permit with conditions. The Board reviewed the Plaintiffs' application and staff recommendations at a February 2009 meeting and ultimately voted 3-2 to urge denial of the application, voicing concerns that a tattoo parlor was not "appropriate" for the neighborhood. The Plaintiffs sued the City in March 2010, alleging violations of their civil rights guaranteed under the state and federal constitutions and seeking declaratory and mandamus relief as well as monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they are entitled to relief because the City violated their state and federal constitutional rights to engage in free speech, receive equal protection under the law, and be afforded substantive due process. Discussion To determine whether the Plaintiffs state a sufficient claim against the City for violating their free-speech rights, we initially must decide whether engaging in the act and business of applying tattoos is such a right guaranteed by the state or federal constitutions. Assignment Please identify the arguments the City would have to support its claim that denial of the permit does not violate Plaintiffs’ free speech rights. 3 Business Law Homework No. 3 Crimes 3-1. Car Chase Victoria lived in a house with roommates Ben and Carl. One night, Albert entered the house through an unlocked, closed door and entered Victoria’s bedroom. Albert removed a partially full bottle of whiskey and a knife from his pocket and threatened to harm Victoria if she screamed. Ben and Carl discovered Albert in Victoria’s room. Catching sight of Ben and Carl, Albert took off running. Ben said to Carl, “Let’s get him!” Ben and Carl chased Albert out of the house. Albert got into a car and drove away. Ben and Carl jumped into a neighbor’s car, which had its keys in the ignition, and sped after Albert. Ben and Carl caught up with Albert in a shopping center. Ben drove into the passenger side of Albert’s vehicle and pushed it until its driver’s side came to rest against the wall of a building, trapping Albert inside. No one was injured. The police arrived and arrested all three parties. 1. What crimes, if any, might Albert reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if any, might he reasonably assert? 2. What crimes, if any, might Ben and Carl reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if any, might they reasonably assert? 3-2. Tired and Careless Doctor After dinner, Alvin felt ill. Although he thought he might have indigestion, he was short of breath and was experiencing chest pains, well-known symptoms of a heart attack. He drove himself to the emergency room at a local hospital. At the emergency room, Alvin described his symptoms to Nick, an experienced screening nurse. Donna was the physician on duty. She had already worked a fourteen-hour shift and was eager to go home. Without examining Alvin, Donna concluded that he had indigestion, relying on Nick’s statement of his symptoms. She sent him home, recommending that he take some bicarbonate of soda. On the drive home, Alvin collapsed behind the wheel of his car. He veered into oncoming traffic, struck a truck, and died instantly. If Alvin had been examined by Donna, he would not have collapsed behind the wheel of his car. With what crimes, if any, can Donna reasonably be charged? 3-3. Burglary and Cyanide In a series of night burglaries, a burglar broke into houses when the owners were away and stole items. The burglar ate cookies found at each house and became known as the “cookie bandit.” Wanting to protect his property and prevent a burglary while he was out of town for the weekend, Dan planned to lace some cookies with cyanide and leave them on his kitchen counter. He believed his plan was lawful because he had been told by a police officer that he could use deadly force to prevent a burglary. He asked his friend Ann to help him obtain cyanide. She tried to talk him out of his plan, but he assured her that it was lawful. Ann then got some cyanide. Dan laced some cookies with it, left them on the kitchen counter, and went left for the weekend. During Dan’s absence, his neighbor Jane entered his house, together with her five-year-old son, Victor. Each weekend, Jane cleaned Dan’s house. While Jane was cleaning, Victor found the cookies, ate one, and died. 1. With what crimes, if any, can Dan reasonably be charged, and what defenses, if any, can he reasonably raise? 2. With what crimes, if any, can Ann reasonably be charged, and what defenses, if any, can she reasonably raise? 3-4. Assassination Gone Wrong Will asked Steve, a professional assassin, to kill Adam, a business rival, and Steve accepted. Before Steve was scheduled to kill Adam, Will heard that Adam’s business was failing. Will told Steve that he had changed his mind and no longer wanted him to kill Adam, but Steve responded that he was going to kill Adam anyway. Steve assaulted Adam late at night on a dark, deserted street. Adam resisted so vigorously that Steve’s life was at risk. Steve finally overcame Adam’s resistance and succeeded in killing him. 1. What charges can reasonably be brought against Steve? 2. What charges can reasonably be brought against Will? BLAW 320 Homework 6 - Contracts 6-1. The Haunted House Stambovsky, to his horror, discovered that the house he recently purchased was commonly known to be possessed by poltergeists. Ackley, the seller of the house, had widely publicized their presence in local media and on a walking tour of the Village of Nyak, New York, where the house was located. Ackley did not disclose this characteristic of the property in the sale. Stambovsky believed that the potential “haunting” should have been disclosed and he sought to rescind the sale. Ackley refused and a law suit resulted. Did the seller have a duty to disclose to the buyer the fact the house was haunted? How should the court decide? What factors should be considered? 6-2. How To Start A Family (Don’t try this at home) Carolyn wanted to have a child, but did not want to get married. Joseph (a friend) agreed to have intercourse with her, but only if she signed an agreement stating that she would not seek child support and hold Joseph harmless for emotional and financial support of a child that might result. They prepared and signed the agreement. Eleven months later, Carolyn gave birth to a baby. After three years of raising the baby without support from Joseph, Carolyn filed a suit seeking to cancel the agreement and for a declaration of paternity and child support from Joseph. Will the court enforce their agreement? 6-3. Was there an enforceable contract? Lisa Serrato appeals an order denying her claim against the Estate of Donald L. Lovekamp. Appellant's claim was for $60,000.00. Lisa and Donald (the decedent) were previously married, but had been divorced for eighteen years. The divorce decree awarded all real property to the decedent as his sole and separate property. Several months after the divorce, Lisa and Donald began residing together again. She alleged that they entered into an oral agreement that he would pay her $60,000.00. There was no mention in the decree of any agreement to give Lisa $60,000.00. In a deposition she clarified that the agreement was not entered into at the time of the divorce in 1975, but rather in July, 1981. They did not own any property jointly at the time of the “agreement”. One evening decedent had been feeling ill and, according to Appellant, talked about selling his house and 80 acre ranch. He said he would sell for $120,000.00. Donald then gave Lisa a check for $60,000.00 and told her it was for coming back and staying with him after they divorced. Donald told Lisa that she could cash the check if he sold the property or if something happened to him. The check was dated July 29, 1981. When decedent died in September, 1999, the check, of course, was too old to cash. Lisa asserted this claim against Donald’s estate for payment of the money. Is the ex-wife entitled to the money from the ex-husband’s estate? Why? Why not? 6-4. The Painting Contract Mary, a frail but mentally sound 87-year old woman, is in the front garden of her old weatherboard home. Duncan, a big man who was tattooed and wearing leathers, parks his motorcycle outside her garden and strikes up a conversation with Mary. He told Mary that: “I am a licensed painter and I could paint the exterior of your house for a good price – $8000”. Mary obviously felt intimidated by Duncan and hastily agreed. The next day Duncan arrived and over the next two days painted her house. During this time Mary discovered from her daughter’s inquiries that had Mary received competitive quotes for the painting work, the going rate for painting her house was about $4000. Her daughter also discovered that Duncan’s registration as a licensed painter had lapsed two weeks ago because he had forgotten to pay the renewal fee. The job is now complete and Duncan has asked Mary for $8000. Is Mary contractually obligated to pay Duncan the $8000?
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags