Jessica Gonzales petitioned that her human rights had not been protected. Previously the Supreme Court had ruled that her Due Process rights had not been violated after police didn't enforce a restraining order against her ex-husband, who subsequently murdered her three children. The Commission ruled that the state had not properly protected Jessica and recommended legislative reform to better protect women and children against domestic violence.
In Jones v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 1030 (2015), the plaintiff was terminated after engaging in threatening and inappropriate behavior toward a former romantic partner who worked at the same company. The coworker reported that the plaintiff made a menacing gesture toward her and her new boyfriend outside of her home, and continued to direct derogatory remarks at her in the workplace. Following his dismissal, he filed suit in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, alleging "reverse gender discrimination" and negligent retention.
In the case Joni v. Ricki, 124 Conn. App. 170 (2010), the plaintiff moved to extend a domestic violence restraining order against her ex-husband under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15, and the trial court granted the motion based on findings that she was subject to a continuous threat of present physical pain or injury.
Stephanie Livingston moved in with Richard Joslyn, her third cousin, following a breakup with her youngest son’s father. She lived with him for six months and struggled with alcohol. She learned later that Joslyn recorded a video of them engaging in sexual intercourse but has no memory of the act. Later she moved in with her mother and applied ex parte for a protective order under the Indiana Civil Protective Order Act. The court issued the order which “prohibited Joslyn from having any contact with Livingston.” A deputy served Joslyn with a copy of the order b
This memorandum presents information about the caseload of courts in the United States. The memorandum discusses the structure under which the judicial caseload is broken down and provides the most currently available case statistics for both federal and state court systems. Appendices and references to supplemental resources are included and provide more extensive caseload information and statistics.
The plaintiff-appellant, an Albanian citizen who entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa, fled her home country after facing three attempted kidnappings that she believed would have led her into forced prostitution. After escaping the third attempt, her uncle arranged for her to obtain a fake passport to enter the United States. After she applied for asylum with the Immigration and Nationalization Service, she was notified that she was subject to removal as an alien not in possession of valid entry documents.
In Kalich v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 679 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of sex discrimination or hostile work environment under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp.
Appellant, a former dispatcher with the Cheyenne Police Department, appealed from the summary judgment which was entered in favor of police officer-appellee, also employed by the Cheyenne Police Department, on appellant’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, because as a matter of law, appellant presented sufficient evidence in support of her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on inappropriate sexual conduct by a co-employee in the workplace, to survive appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
Dinzel and Christine Karch were married with three children. Christine sought and was granted a protection from abuse (“PFA”) order for an incident in March wherein Dinzel placed his hands around her neck and threatened to “snap” it. Then in May, during an argument about getting divorced and child custody, Dinzel put his hands on his wife’s forehead, made a motion as if he was firing a gun, and said “there is your future.” This action made Christine’s head sore as if she had a brush burn. Dinzel argued that the court should not have credited Christine’s testimony abo
