John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo‚ INC. 1. (a)What are the facts and (b) sources of law in this case? a. Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle‚ Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion‚ titled "Pepsi Stuff‚" attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign‚ PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation‚’ in order to gain
Premium Contract
MAT 300: STATISTICS M&M PROJECT PAPER ALEXANDREA WINT PROFESSOR AZAD‚ VARGHA June 3‚ 2012 Purpose of Report The purpose of this project is to find the information for a quality control manager of Masterfoods plant. The manager wants to know about the proportion of candies and if they are the same or different. If there is any difference that exists then the manager wants to know why there is a difference in such cases. A study was conducted and results were obtained and based
Premium Sample Statistics Sample size
Case Analyses March 12‚ 2012 Burlington Industries‚ Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) I. FACTS: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job as a sales person at Burlington Industries after working there for 15 months. Her reasoning was that her supervisor‚ Ted Slowik‚ was sexually harassing her. Ellerth did not inform any other supervisors‚ and therefore the company was unaware of Slowik’s actions with Ellerth. Despite her refusals with Slowik’s advances‚ Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation
Premium Employment Appeal Lawyer
Computer Task Group‚ Inc. v. Brotby United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Circuit‚ 2004. 364 F.3d 1112. FACTS: In 1995 William Brotby was hired by Computer Task Group‚ Inc. (CTG) as an information technologies consultant. Upon hiring‚ Brotby had to sign an agreement stating that he would be restricted to work for any CTG customers if he left the company. No more than two years later‚ Brotby left CTG and began to work for one of CTG’s customers known as Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
Premium Appeal Civil procedure
I. John M. Richmond v. State of Iowa‚ 97-954 (Plaintiff John M. Richmond) v. (Defendant the State of Iowa) II. Procedural History Defendant John M. Richmond and partner Robyn Krell were in an intimate relationship. Once the relationship ended‚ Richmond appeared at Krell’s residence and forced her to have sex with him while holding a knife in his hand. Richmond called his hired counselor‚ Fr. Dick Osing for counseling on the incident. Richmond was charged with second-degree sexual abuse. Richmond
Premium United States Appeal Law
Laurel Creek Health Care Center v. Bishop Court of Appeals of Kentucky‚____S.W.3d___(2010) FACTS Gilbert Bishop was admitted to Laurel Creek Health Care Center on July 23‚ 2002‚ after arriving via ambulance without family present. During that examination‚ Gilbert communicated to Laurel Creek staff that he could not use his hands well enough to write or hold a pencil. Gilbert was otherwise found to be mentally competent. Gilbert’s sister‚ Rachel Combs‚ arrived after Gilbert‚ she offered to sign
Premium Court Sign Jury
BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY‚ INC. 134 S. Ct 2751 (US 2014) SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES Facts: Hobby Lobby is a family owned arts and crafts store that runs on Christian principles. The companies statement of purpose is “honoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The family does not believe in the use of contraception but under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)‚ the company is required to offer a minimum coverage
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States
Doloff‚ Steven. The Prudent Samaritan: Melville’s “Bartleby‚ the Scrivener” as Parody of Christ’s Parable to the Lawyer. Studies in Short Fiction. 34.3 (Summer 1997): p357. From Literature Resource Center. The critical essay‚ “The Prudent Samaritan: Melville’s “Bartleby‚ the Scrivener” as Parody of Christ’s Parable to the Lawyer” by Steven Doloff was very interesting‚ his comparison with religion came to me as a surprise. Never did I imagine the similarity of the parable with stories from the bible
Premium Writing Scrivener Fiction
Appeals decreed thus: “WHEREFORE‚ finding the Motion to Dismiss Appeal to be meritorious‚ the same is granted. The appeal is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.”ii[2] The Antecedent Facts On March 29‚ 1988‚ petitioner through its former counsel‚ Atty. Antonio M. Pery‚ filed a Complaint to recover the sum of P11‚420‚000.00 from Asia Trust Development Bank (“Asiatrust” for brevity) and the Central Bank of the Philippines (“CBP” for brevity) before the Regional Trial Court of Makati‚ Branch 147 (“RTC” for brevity)
Premium Appellate court Appeal Court
Why talk about Anderson v GMC or even Keck v Wesley Medical Center? Because staffing is still an issue. It will become more of an issue as reimbursement continues to be curtailed. Moreover‚ as patient ratios are increasingly mandated‚ and studies of the impact of nurse staffing on patient outcomes are providing a growing body of knowledge‚ it is not only possible but likely that now that we can know what is safe hospital leadership will be held liable if they do not maintain safe staffing levels
Premium Physician Patient Hospital