Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The Unites States vs Park United States Supreme Court
The United States v. Park United States Supreme Court 421 U.S. 658 (1975)
Acme Markets, a rational food chain organization, has employed many people, nearly 36,000, and it has around 874 retail outlets and 12 general warehouses (Community, 2022). It has many leaders, including the presidents office, and respondent Park was the CEO during the conviction of the case. In 1970, the government charged Ace and the respondent with violating the states laws. After the inspectors from FDA conducted their inspections at their warehouse, they found a widespread of rodents at the warehouse. They issued a note to Acme Markets to address the matter. However, Acme Markets failed to comply even after several interventions convicted them of violating state laws. Although the chain pleaded guilty, the corporate office denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. But after several trials, the corporate office was found guilty on all accounts and was demanded to pay a fine. It resulted in the appellate court intervening since they found the jury instruction erroneous.
The Applicable Laws
Besides, the case involved human consumption products, and any organization offering these products has an affirmative duty under the Federal Food Act to take precautions to ensure they remain fit for human consumption. Even though the corporate office denied the allegations, they were involved in the business. Thus, for the chain to be...…making the defendant criminally responsible (Caron, 2022). However, the appellate courts jurisdiction allowed a guilty judgment because they found that the defendant accountable for the food and unsanitary conditions was from the corporate office. The court cautioned that this fact alone did not necessitate finding Park guilty, but they were left to judge under what rationale the defendant was responsible.
In conclusion, critically analyzing the case, one will notice that the responsible corporate officer doctrine governs it. Under this doctrine, it indicates that the defendant had all the capabilities to prevent the violation of the law. Therefore, after being issued the first notice of the invasion of the rodents in the warehouse, they could have acted immediately on methods to eliminate…
References
Caron, S. (2022). United States v. Park | Case Brief for Law Students. Casebriefs.com. Retrieved 11 June 2022, from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-kadish/group-criminality/united-states-v-park/.
Community, L. (2022). United States v. Park | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. Community. Retrieved 11 June 2022, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-park-1394932692.
Skelton, C. (2022). United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). Justia Law. Retrieved 11 June 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/658/.
Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. James NEELY. Facts In 1973, James Neely started working for Cash Distributing Co., a company that distributed Anheuser-Busch products in several parts of the United States. The company had offices in Columbus, Starkville and Tupelo. During the 1990s, James Neely was heading the Columbus office. By this time, Anheuser-Busch started to look more closely at the way some of its rules were enforced,
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was