1) What is the most “jealousy” protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3 points) Answer: According to the court in this case, the most jealousy protected speech is that which advances the free, uninhibited flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. That which is addressed to matters of private concern, or focuses upon persons who are not “public figures” is less stringently protected. 2) What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Answer: Supreme Court of New York
3) Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Answer: In this case, radio station and disc jockeys (defendants) challenged the judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, which denied their motion to dismiss the plaintiff private individual complaint for failure to state a cause of action in her action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to the information provided in this case, the plaintiff private individual bridal photograph was published in a local newspaper along with those of other brides.
The same day, during a broadcast, the defendants engaged in a routine known as the “ugliest bride” contest. During this contest, they made derogatory and disparaging comments about plaintiff’s appearance. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants deviated from the regular routine of the contest by disclosing her full name that she worked as a competing radio station, as well as the identity of, and her relations with, her superiors.
The Term Paper on Lively 1999 Amendment Case Court
... general historical rundown, five major Supreme Court cases within the past twenty-five ... it restricted as well. However, many plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of this ... Outcome: "The telephone conversation was protected by the Fourth Amendment because the ... ones, both create a controversy. Only answers that can be found lie ... death. Nancy's parents argued this point; because they saw that she ...
The plaintiff alleged that she and her supervisors heard this broadcast and as a result of its offensive content, she experienced extreme emotional distress at the time because she was a newlywed. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment of trial court, which denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and found that the plaintiff had an actionable claim. 4) According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court approve a filing for? (5 points) Answer: According to the case, this was not defamation due to the reason of being an expression of opinion. Due to the unique factual information presented in this case that the plaintiff was a private individual and the matter was not of public interest or concern, the court approved a filing for the plaintiff’s lawsuit of the intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed. 5) In the decision, why does the court state further proceedings will be required? (5 points) Answer:
The court states that further proceedings will be required because more investigation needs to be done into the plaintiff’s allegations to determine what extent the allegations of her complaint ultimately satisfies the stringent requirements for the tort and sufficiently states a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 6) Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) Answer: This student agrees with this decision because even though there was a contest, there was no reason to disclose the plaintiff’s personal information and details of her job and make disparaging and derogatory comments about her appearance. Her personal information was revealed during the broadcast and therefore one could identify her and due to these facts the plaintiff could experience emotional distress, especially since she was a newlywed.
The Term Paper on HIPAA Ruling In Tennessee Court
Failure to adhere to regulatory compliance can impact a litigation process, which in the case of Stevens vs, Hickman Community Hospital was prominent when the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the case based on failure to comply with Tennessee’s Medical Malpractice Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This paper will include an IRAC Brief that will explain ...
