In 2007, An Alabama Court Ordered A Father To Pay 600 For Mo

3 13in 2007 An Alabama Court Ordered A Father To Pay 600 For Monthl

In 2007, an Alabama court ordered a father to pay $600 for monthly postminority educational support. Ten months later, in December of that year, the mother brought the father to court because the father was not paying the educational support. He also had not shown up for the court hearing, and was therefore in contempt of court. However, the father argued that under Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b), he did not have to make the payments because his attorney did not tell him about the court hearing. The rule he cited could have protected him because the rule provides relief for a defendant based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Unfortunately for the father, the rule also states that an appeal must be made four months after the original order; the father in this case made the appeal 10 months later. Thus, due to the missed deadline, the court would have no jurisdiction over the case.

Nevertheless, the appellant court then considered taking the father’s appeal under a subsection of the 60(b) rule, 60(b)(6). This section states that an order may be undone for “any . . . reason justifying relief.” This subsection also contains a time limit more ambiguous than four months, stating that “[the appeal] only has to be brought within a ‘reasonable time.’” Was the father’s appeal successful? Did the court determine whether it had jurisdiction over the case? (Noll v. Noll, 2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 32)

The three Missouri plaintiffs owned Whispering Lane Kennel, a Missouri business that breeds and shows AKC dogs, especially the Chinese Crested breed. Defendants show and sell Chinese Crested dogs in competition with plaintiffs.

Defendants ran a website, [no longer online], that posted negative information about plaintiffs’ kennel that was viewed by people around the country, including at least 25 Missouri residents who were in the dog breeding business. The owners of Whispering Lane Kennel sued out-of-state defendants for libel in state district court in Missouri. The court held that minimum contacts had not been established, so Missouri courts did not have jurisdiction over defendants. How do you think the court ruled on plaintiffs’ appeal? Why? (Baldwin v. Fisher-Smith, ---S.W.3d--- (2010 WL , Ct. App., Mo., 2010))

A debtor who had defaulted on a student loan asked a bankruptcy court to decide that the student-loan principal was fully paid. The court determined that the debtor still owed what was due on the student loan. However, the court also decided that postpetition interest was to be awarded, and collection costs were to be denied. Subsequently, the Educational Credit Management Corporation appealed this decision, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction over postpetition interest and collection costs because the court was a bankruptcy court. Do you think the appeal was successful? Was the decision of the first court reversed? (Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Kirkland, 600 F.3d 310; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13th Cir. 2010)

Joseph Hazel, a tractor-trailer operator, was involved in a car accident while working. Hazel’s tractor-trailer struck a vehicle in which A.H., a minor, was a passenger. The accident occurred in Dearborn County, and Hazel’s residence and R & D Transport’s principal place of business are in Hendricks County. Sarah Richardson, suing for herself and as the guardian of A.H., filed suit in Porter County where they resided. Richardson sued, in part, for damages to “orthotic devices [and] clothing” for A.H. that were normally kept in Porter County. Hazel and R & D filed a motion to have the case transferred to either Hendricks County or Dearborn County. What is the proper venue for the trial? (R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H., 859 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2006))

In 2004, EJS Properties LLC sued the city of Toledo and Bob McCloskey, alleging the city violated constitutional rights by denying a rezoning application. The company claimed that McCloskey demanded a $100,000 payment to approve the deal and that the council followed his lead in denying the rezoning. The case reached the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The prior judge was still making decisions on some aspects of the case. How did this case turn out? (EJS PROPERTIES, LLC v. City of Toledo, 689 F.3d 535, 2012)

An engineer involved with manufacturing nuclear reactor parts was fired after voicing concerns about quality control issues that might breach his company’s Navy contract. He filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit in federal court, claiming violations of federal statutes that ban submitting false claims to the military or federal government. The company moved to have the case transferred to a state court, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction. Did the case stay in federal court, or was it moved? (Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 2006)

Tennessee enacted a law aimed at preventing stolen metal from being sold by scrap dealers, including screening, recordkeeping, and waiting periods. The Scrap Recyclers Association challenged the law, claiming it violated the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment. The district court upheld the law, and the Recyclers appealed. What was the likely outcome? (Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Association v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 2009)

Aurora, Colorado, banned certain dog breeds, including pit bulls, within city limits. The American Canine Foundation challenged this ordinance, claiming it infringed on constitutional rights, including the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Is the ordinance constitutional? (American Canine Foundation v. City of Aurora, Colorado, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 2009)

Police installed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle parked in a public lot, believed to be associated with a suspect, and tracked it without a warrant for 28 days. The defendant argued this violated the Fourth Amendment. Should the evidence obtained be suppressed? Why? (United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct.)

Phelps and his church picketed funerals and posted pictures on their website criticizing the deceased and their family. The family sued for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and the jury awarded damages. Phelps appealed, claiming First Amendment protection. What was the likely outcome? (Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 2009)

A disbarred lawyer filed a lawsuit claiming that revocation of his license was a government taking requiring compensation. The case was dismissed due to statutes of limitations. If the case were timely, could he seek compensation other than monetary? Why or why not? (Smith v. United States, 2012 U.S. Claims)

Johns-Manville, an asbestos company, filed for bankruptcy after facing numerous lawsuits. It created a fund for claimants, but it was insufficient to cover all damages. Was it ethical for the company to declare bankruptcy? Which social responsibility school could justify or criticize this decision? (In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36 B.R. 727, 1984)

Richard Fraser, an insurance agent, prepared an email to competitors and was investigated when Nationwide retrieved and used that email during contract disputes. Was Nationwide's action ethical? What ethical school did Fraser exemplify? (Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F. Supp. 3d 623, 2001)

Charles Zandford, a securities broker, misappropriated funds from an elderly client’s account. He claimed to act in the client’s best interest, but stole the money. What ethical theory did Zandford embody? What about the SEC’s stance? (SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S.)

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the complex legal cases presented from various jurisdictions, it is evident that issues of jurisdiction, ethics, constitutional rights, and statutory interpretation play pivotal roles in determining outcomes. This essay will explore representative cases highlighting the nuances of legal procedures, ethical considerations, and constitutional principles guiding judicial decisions.

Alabama Case: Jurisdiction and Appellate Timelines

The 2007 Alabama case involving a father's failure to obey a court-ordered educational support payment underscores critical procedural rules, notably Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The father employed a mistaken belief that his attorney's failure to inform him about the hearing excused his nonappearance. However, Rule 60(b) stipulates that relief is limited by specific criteria, including time constraints, with an appeal typically required within four months. In this case, the father attempted to appeal after ten months, exceeding the deadline. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, illustrating the importance of timely filings in appellate jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the court considered whether relief under subsection 60(b)(6) could be justified by "any ... reason justifying relief," which provides a more flexible standard. Courts often balance strict deadlines against equitable considerations, but explicit statutory timeframes usually prevail. The court ultimately denied relief, reaffirming the significance of procedural deadlines.

Jurisdictional Challenges in Missouri Libel Suit

The Missouri case involving Whispering Lane Kennel exemplifies jurisdictional considerations in out-of-state libel claims. The court's ruling that minimum contacts were insufficient emphasizes the Due Process Clause's requirement for establishing sufficient connections for jurisdiction. The plaintiffs' appeal likely faced rejection because the defendants' online activity, although accessible nationwide, did not establish targeted contacts within Missouri. Courts generally assess whether defendants purposefully directed activities at the forum state, which was not evident here, leading to a rejection of jurisdiction. This case underscores the importance of tangible contacts for establishing jurisdiction in internet-related litigation, aligning with precedent established by cases such as Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.

Bankruptcy and Jurisdiction Over Postpetition Claims

The bankruptcy case of Educational Credit Management Corporation involves jurisdictional limits over postpetition interest and collection costs. Since the Bankruptcy Code grants jurisdiction over core proceedings, the court's authority extends primarily to matters involving the estate, including the allowance of claims. The appeal's success hinges on whether postpetition interest and costs fall within the scope of the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. In the cited case, the Federal Circuit likely held that such claims, being ancillary to the original debt, are within the court’s jurisdiction, unless explicitly excluded. The decision reflects a broader judicial consensus that bankruptcy courts possess inherent authority to adjudicate postconfirmation distributions, reaffirming the importance of understanding statutory jurisdictional boundaries in bankruptcy law.

Venue and Proper Jurisdiction in Personal Injury Claims

The case of R & D Transport versus A.H. illustrates the significance of proper venue in personal injury litigation. Given Hazel's residence and principal place of business are in Hendricks County, but the injury occurred elsewhere, the proper venue naturally aligns with the location of the injury or the defendant’s residence. Under Indiana law, venue typically hinges on where the defendant resides or where the injury occurred. Since A.H. was injured in Dearborn County, that becomes the appropriate venue. The plaintiff’s attempt to sue in Porter County, where they reside, likely would be dismissed or transferred. This case exemplifies the importance of strategic venue selection for efficient adjudication and consistent application of jurisdictional rules.

Constitutionality of Economic Regulation: The Colorado Dog Ordinance

The Colorado ordinance banning certain dog breeds, including pit bulls, raises constitutional issues under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs argue that the law results in an uncompensated taking and violates due process and equal protection rights. Courts analyzing such measures consider whether the ordinance bears a rational basis, serves a legitimate public interest (public safety), and is not arbitrary or discriminatory. Breed-specific bans often are justified on public safety grounds but can be challenged as overbroad or discriminatory. The court in this scenario would evaluate whether the breed ban is narrowly tailored, and whether it provides compensation if it effectively deprives owners of property rights—pets are considered property under the law. Given the history of breed-specific legislation, courts have often upheld such bans if supported by evidence of public safety concerns, but have also scrutinized for excessiveness or lack of due process.

Fourth Amendment and GPS Tracking: The Jones Case

The Supreme Court’s decision to exclude evidence obtained through warrantless GPS tracking in United States v. Jones demonstrates the importance of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Installing a GPS device on a vehicle and tracking its movements for 28 days without a warrant constitutes a search, requiring probable cause and a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The Court's ruling emphasizes that physical trespass onto an individual’s property—here, the vehicle—violates Fourth Amendment rights absent an exception. The evidence obtained through such a warrantless surveillance was rightly excluded, reinforcing the principle that effective privacy protections extend even to digital surveillance, and that law enforcement must adhere to constitutional processes.

First Amendment and Picketing: Snyder v. Phelps

The case of Snyder v. Phelps exemplifies the tension between free speech and emotional distress claims. The Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing and posting of highly offensive messages at a funeral are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, provided they are conducted on a matter of public concern. The Court held that even speech that causes emotional distress and invasion of privacy is shielded unless it involves harassment, true threats, or speech that incites imminent lawless action. The government’s interest in protecting funerals from disruptive protests does not outweigh the speech protections afforded by the First Amendment. Therefore, the communication was deemed protected, and the damages awarded were unconstitutional. This case underscores the enduring importance of free speech protections in American law.

Government Takings and Disbarment: The Disbarred Lawyer Case

The disbarred lawyer’s claim that revocation of his license constitutes a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment parallels issues of property rights and procedural limits, notably statutes of limitations. Had the claim been timely, the lawyer could potentially seek non-monetary relief, such as reinstatement or other equitable remedies, grounded in due process protections. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause generally applies to physical property or regulatory restrictions that deprive property of economic value. Professional licenses are considered property rights; revocation can be a taking if it deprives the licensee of all economically beneficial uses. Nonetheless, courts often uphold disciplinary actions if procedural safeguards are followed, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures over monetary compensation.

Bankruptcy and Ethical Dilemmas: Johns-Manville Case

Johns-Manville’s decision to declare bankruptcy to settle asbestos lawsuits could be justified under a utilitarian school of social responsibility, aimed at preserving jobs and the broader economic interests. The company created a trust fund to compensate claimants, recognizing the moral obligation to address damages while ensuring the company's survival. Critics argue that such bankruptcy strategies can be exploited to limit liability unfairly, raising ethical questions about equitable treatment of victims. Nonetheless, bankruptcy laws often facilitate reorganization to balance corporate viability against creditor rights, emphasizing the importance of corporate social responsibility in managing environmental and health damages responsibly.

Electronic Communications and Ethical Responsibilities: Fraser’s Email

In Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, Nationwide’s retrieval and use of Fraser’s email raises ethical issues about privacy and responsible corporate conduct. As the employer, Nationwide had a duty to respect employee privacy rights, yet it justified its actions based on monitoring company emails. Fraser’s conduct suggests he adhered to the school of social responsibility emphasizing individual rights—acting ethically by respecting privacy. Nationwide’s action reflects a utilitarian approach, prioritizing organizational interests but potentially neglecting individual privacy concerns, raising ethical debates about transparency and consent in electronic surveillance.

Financial Fraud and Ethical Principles: Zandford’s Misappropriation

Charles Zandford’s conduct of misappropriating client funds represents a violation of Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, showing a breach of moral duty and integrity. His actions are fundamentally dishonest and self-serving, disregarding the fiduciary responsibility owed to his clients. In contrast, the SEC’s role embodies principles of fairness, integrity, and protecting investors—upholding transparency and enforcing laws against fraud. The case exemplifies the conflict between unethical individual conduct and the protective function of regulatory institutions. Zandford’s actions fundamentally undermine trust in financial markets, detrimental to societal interests and contrary to core ethical standards.

References

• Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Ala. R. Civ. P. 60(b), 2010.
• Baldwin v. Fisher-Smith, ---S.W.3d--- (2010 WL , Ct. App., Mo., 2010).
• Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Kirkland, 600 F.3d 310 (2010).
• R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H., 859 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2006).
• EJS Properties LLC v. City of Toledo, 689 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2012).
• Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (2006).
• Montgomery v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009).
• American Canine Foundation v. City of Aurora, Colorado, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (2009).
• United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. (2012).
• Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009).
• Smith v. United States, 2012 U.S. Claims (Fed. Cl., 2012).
• In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36 B.R. 727 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984).
• Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F. Supp. 3d 623 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
• SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. (2002).