Courtroom Observsation
“You be the Judge”
Week 5 Courtroom Observation Paper Research
BUSI 301 Liberty University
Indiana Northern District Court
Judges: Chief Justice Raymond, Brown, Uphold, Batten, Grambo, Wray, Bryant, Cross and Allen
Case Number: 80a14-5352-vc804
Plaintiff: Debora White
Plaintiff Representatives: Ashley Gavin and Jackson Riley
Defendant: O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs
Defendant Representatives: Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa
Defendant Council Overview:
Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite understanding and helpful information defined in the Indiana Dream Shop Act which contains useful knowledge. Mr. Edward Hard did not participate or take on any behavior or actions that provided proof of intoxication. Debora White, the Plaintiff is in search of compensation from the defendants, O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs with the theory that Mr. Patrick Gibbs had concrete awareness of Mr. Edward Hard’s consumption of alcohol. (I.C. 7.1-5-10-15.5, 1996) cites that Mr. Gibbs the defendant have actual knowledge of the person being intoxicated before damages are allowed to be awarded. Practical awareness does not persuade the hindrance nor does individual awareness. Indirect evidence doesn’t support practical awareness only actual knowledge. Individual awareness can sustain the intrusion whereas actual knowledge has to carry through and support the intrusion. Observable dealings with the recognizable events of intoxication are prejudiced according to the 7th Indiana State Circuit Court. In the Supreme Court statue stated prior to the year 1988 common law tolerated practical awareness for intrusions and caused a change in the law for this not to be supported.
The night this incident occurred Mr. Edward Hard was
Week 5 Courtroom Observation Paper Research
BUSI 301 Liberty University
Indiana Northern District Court
Judges: Chief Justice Raymond, Brown, Uphold, Batten, Grambo, Wray, Bryant, Cross and Allen
Case Number: 80a14-5352-vc804
Plaintiff: Debora White
Plaintiff Representatives: Ashley Gavin and Jackson Riley
Defendant: O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs
Defendant Representatives: Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa
Defendant Council Overview:
Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite understanding and helpful information defined in the Indiana Dream Shop Act which contains useful knowledge. Mr. Edward Hard did not participate or take on any behavior or actions that provided proof of intoxication. Debora White, the Plaintiff is in search of compensation from the defendants, O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs with the theory that Mr. Patrick Gibbs had concrete awareness of Mr. Edward Hard’s consumption of alcohol. (I.C. 7.1-5-10-15.5, 1996) cites that Mr. Gibbs the defendant have actual knowledge of the person being intoxicated before damages are allowed to be awarded. Practical awareness does not persuade the hindrance nor does individual awareness. Indirect evidence doesn’t support practical awareness only actual knowledge. Individual awareness can sustain the intrusion whereas actual knowledge has to carry through and support the intrusion. Observable dealings with the recognizable events of intoxication are prejudiced according to the 7th Indiana State Circuit Court. In the Supreme Court statue stated prior to the year 1988 common law tolerated practical awareness for intrusions and caused a change in the law for this not to be supported.
The night this incident occurred Mr. Edward Hard was
References: Pointe Caste, Liberty University Courtroom Observation Web Site Retrieved: http://www.leagle.com/ Bible, New International Version (NIV)