100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
BLW 342- Exam 2 (Cases) Question and answers rated A+ $13.99
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. BLW 342
  4.  
  5. BLW 342

Exam (elaborations)

BLW 342- Exam 2 (Cases) Question and answers rated A+
 0 purchase
  • Course
  • BLW 342
  • Institution
  • BLW 342

BLW 342- Exam 2 (Cases) Question and answers rated A+ US vs. Parks case - correct answer Case about rodent infestation. Mr. Park convicted and fined $500. Court of Appeals reverses the conviction. US Appeals. Supreme Court reverses because Mr. Park had been on notice and should've known there ...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 9  pages

Document information

  • November 24, 2024
  • 9
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

Written for

  • BLW 342
  • BLW 342

Seller

avatar-seller
Academia199

Reviews received

Content preview

BLW 342- Exam 2 (Cases) Question and
answers rated A+
US vs. Parks case - correct answer ✔Case about rodent infestation. Mr.
Park convicted and fined $500. Court of Appeals reverses the conviction. US
Appeals. Supreme Court reverses because Mr. Park had been on notice and
should've known there were deficiencies in his system and couldn't trust his
employees to get the work done.


US v. Ahmad - correct answer ✔United States v. Ahmad (9.4) "Well if I don't
get caught what then?" Mr. Ahmad rented a motorized water pump and
pumped out 5220 gallons of fluid, most of which was gasoline. Jury found him
guilty. Mr. Ahmad appealed.


Knowingly has to be applied individually to each crime.
Judge implied that the requisite mens rea was strict liability rather than
knowledge. Because this misled the jury to the elements of the offence, case
reversed and remanded.


Dow Chemical vs. US - correct answer ✔photos taken from aircraft a
violation of fourth amendment? (search & seizure)


Dow vs US Rule Photos taken were from public activity, fourth amendment
wasn't violated, court of appeals affirmed


City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) - correct answer ✔City of Ontario v. Quon In
the 2010 case City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court held that searches
of police officers' pagers are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
because they are linked to a legitimate, work-related purpose.

, Miles Vs. Walmart - correct answer ✔What happened: She digitized the
documents as requested but didn't throw the papers away b/c she had email
to keep the documents


What legal thing did it concern: Sarbanes-Oxley, sued them under "whistle
blower protection"


Who won and why: Miles won,


Burnett v. National Enquirer - correct answer ✔National Equirer writes a lie in
the "gossip column" about Ms. Burnett getting drunk and causing problems in
a restaurant. Ms. Burnett files suit saying it was entirely false and libelous.
Jury Trial Awards Burnett $300,000 and $1,300,000 in punitive damages.
Enquirer Appeals.
Supreme courts points out National Enquirer is not a newspaper so must have
more accurate facts. Also point out the damages are too large. Affirms Jury
Decision but modifies the damages to make them more reasonable.


Cactus Feeders v Winfrey - correct answer ✔Cattle ranchers sued in Texas
state court. Case removed to fed. District court. Jurisdiction?
Cause of action=defamation, disparagement, & negligence
"Knowingly disseminates false information"= definition of intent in the statute


Cattlemen vs Oprah Issue whether The Oprah Winfrey Show and one of its
guests knowingly and falsely depicted American beef as unsafe


Cattlemen vs Oprah Rule Winfrey and Harpo Productions may not be held
liable for the editing of the "Dangerous Food" show; The insufficiency of the
cattlemen's evidence, however, renders unnecessary a complete inquiry into
the Act's scope. DOESNT EQUAL DEFAMATION

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Academia199. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $13.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67479 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling
$13.99
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added