PECK v. DELAWARE COUNTY BD. OF PRISON, 814 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2002) Facts Corrections officer who worked at a prison through a contractor, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, brought negligence action against the prison board for injuries to his shoulder sustained when he slipped in a puddle of water and fell while attempting to close a heavy prison door. As a result he suffered injuries requiring two surgeries to his left shoulder. Peck filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer and sought an award by bringing an action against the Prison Board, alleging that it was negligent in the care, custody and control of the prison premises, and ultimately their negligence resulted in his injuries. Procedural Background The Board moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it enjoyed immunity from suit pursuant to Section 203 of the Workers’ Compensation Act because, the Board claims it qualifies as Appellee’s statutory employer. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the Board is statutory employer of Appellee and, therefore, immune from suit. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that the board is not the statutory employer of Appellee because the Board does not meet the statutory employer test in McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287, 153 A. 424 (1930), and (2) Appellee is an employee of an independent contractor, Wackenhut. We granted allocatur to examine the statutory employer doctrine in the context of the privatization of a service that was once exclusively a public function: the operation of local prisons. Issue Did the Board, which formerly employed Appellee as a prison corrections officer when it operated and managed the Prison, lose its immunity from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act when it contracted with Wackenhut to operate and manage the Prison? Brief Answer Yes. We hold that the Board did lose its immunity from suit when it contracted with Wackenhut to operate and manage the prison and, accordingly, affirm the Commonwealth Court. Reasoning Wackenhut has the authority to hire, fire, discipline, and direct its
Good effort on your Case Brief paper. However, you did not provide the necessary sub-headings for your Case Brief, and this is a serious omission. Furthermore, you needed to include more information under each sub-heading, if you had any. Please always type your names, course number and title, date, and perhaps Instructor's names on top of your papers.
Your grade on this assignment is 82% (B-).
Dr. Dennis A. Ogirri
Washington et al. v. Harold Glucksberg et al.
State of Iowa, Appellate…
Randi HeimanConstitutional Criminal Procedures
Title: Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Citation: 403 US 433 (1970)
In the case of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, the warrant issued to search the defendant’s automobile did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The reason for this is because the warrant was not issued or approved by a “neutral and detached magistrate.” The constitutional rule states that searches conducted outside the judicial process without…
Case: State of Missouri v. David R. Bullock, 03CR679889.MO, [www.courts.mo.gov/casenet]
Facts: At the time of the filing of his appeal, Mr. David R. Bullock had been charged and convicted of attempted statutory rape (under RSMO 566.032 and 564.011) and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor (under RSMO 564.011 and RSMO 566.032). David R. Bullock engaged in several conversations via email and chat rooms with a Newton County Deputy Sheriff who was conducting a sting operation…
STATE OF WISOTA,
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS BRIEF AND CHIEF
On Appeal from the State of Wisota Court of Appeals
ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED
AMBROSIO E. CASTELLANO
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
PO BOX 114
SERAFINA, NM 87701
CONSEL FOR THE RESPODENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….. 3
I. Nature of the Case and Course Proceeding………………………………. 4
II. Summary of the Facts……………………………………………………. 5
I. Brief Cupp v. Murphy
412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973)
Merits: The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the estranged husband…
Style of Case and Citation:
Young v. Becker & Poliakoff
88 So.3d 1002 (2012)
Court Rendering Final Decision:
Supreme Court of the United States ??????
Identification of Parties and Procedural Details: Who is the Plaintiff/Appellant? Who is the Defendant/Appealer? What is the cause of action? Who prevailed in lower court? Who is appealing to what court?
Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination…
GAINESBORO MACHINE TOOLS CORPORATION
Ashley Swenson, CFO of Gainesboro Machine Tools Corporation (GMT), had to recommend an effective dividend policy at a down time of GMT stock price’s performance. She needed either to recommend to payout cash dividend or to buyback shares from its shareholders. Also, if any, the percentage of dividend payout has to be determined. Opinions about those recommendations were separated among board members and managers. At that time, a payout…
kaplan university- pa401 advanced legal writing |
Case Brief Draft |
Unit 3 Assignment |
Vicky Hunter |
to: victoria corbo, esq.
from: vICKY hUNTER- pARALEGAL
Subject: Case Brief
CC: Tony T. Smith
Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000)
Plaintiff, Elian Gonzalez, a six year old minor, through his “next of friend”, Lazaro Gonzalez, filed an asylum…
Lululemon Case Brief
a. Demographic Segment: The demographic segment is important to the sportswear industry due to different age groups, cultures, and genders demanding different types and price points for their apparel. This is positive for the industry, since businesses can sell to anyone with an active lifestyle.
b. Global Segment: The largest companies in this industry have achieved their size due to their penetration of global markets on multiple continents, suggesting…
Lenovo Case Brief
Student Name – Yerrakalva Gayatri Alekhya
Student No. - 1479067
Lenovo wants to grow as an international brand worldwide. Being a Chinese company, generally remarked for low reliability, Lenovo has to create their image as a global company offering innovative, reliable product and services to a larger group in order to create value to their customers in the rest of the world.