Business law concepts and principles

¶ … strict scrutiny test for this particular example is incorrect, as for gender issues, the constitution demands that an intermediate scrutiny test be applied - unfortunately it is unclear who bears the burden, the plaintiff or the government, to show the law's constitutionality. In this case, the plaintiff would enter into litigation in which a court would decide, based on that court's previous precedent, who bears the burden: whether it is the government to demonstrate that there is a legitimate government interest at stake that justifies the intermediate level interference with men's rights, or whether it is the plaintiff's position to demonstrate that there is not.

The beautiful girl can certainly sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498. The term "emotional distress" means mental distress, mental suffering or mental anguish. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as physical pain. The word "severe," in the phrase "severe emotional distress," means substantial or enduring as distinguished from trivial or transitory. Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. In determining the severity of emotional distress consideration is given to its intensity and duration. The Restatement view is that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." (Rest. 2d Torts, 46, com. d; see Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, at pp. 46-47.) "The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe." (Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, p. 51; Rest.2d Torts, supra, 46, Com. j.) There is too little of a linkage for Harry to be charged with manslaughter, however. Harry could not reasonably anticipate that his actions would result in a death. Sandy would be charged with second degree murder and Sexual battery and Kidnapping, Jamie however would be charged with Kidnapping and third degree murder (not second because holding down does not constitute imminent danger). The petit theft of the second degree charge will stand as well. Larceny in old common law was classified as compound or simple. Simple larceny was called grand larceny when the value of the stolen property was more than 12 pence, and petit (petty) larceny when the value was less. Compound larceny was the taking and carrying away of property from the person or house of the owner. In the U.S. today, the various criminal codes of the states generally define larceny and classify it as either grand larceny or petit larceny. Under these codes, property is stolen and larceny committed when, with definite intent to deprive oneself or a third person, one wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner of it. In New York State, for example, grand larceny is classified as a felony. It is characterized as first-degree if the property is obtained by extortion or through the abuse of a position as a public servant, and as second- or third-degree larceny depending on the value of the property stolen and the nature of the theft. Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, refers to theft not covered in the first three degrees. So, indeed, petit theft equates to petit larceny. There was no "bad act" in the Pink *****cats case, so there is no crime there at all. Battery is an general intent crime and Sandy will be charged with that since she escalated the conflict even if she felt startled. Jammie can be sued for battery as an intentional tort as well. The Sam and Harry case is a classic one of felony murder. A co-conspirator and co-actor was killed in the commission of a felony, so the charge will stand.