Business Law #1: Responses

Business Law #1: Responses

Peer Response task: DUE March 10th (tonight) at 17:00 military time!!!

Interaction is defined as your contributions to the ongoing “conversations” in the Forums. You are expected to provide additional insights, explore differing opinions and present soundly supported, well reasoned comments that build upon ideas presented by others in the class. Your interaction grade is evaluated more on the substance of your comments, than on the quantity of your postings. Use the following as guidelines of Interaction expectations.

· The contributions develop the ideas further and even bring in new research to further develop the topic. Do not waste time by simply agreeing with or repeating another posting.

· These responses should be at least 200 words each in length, supported by at least ONE reference outside of the textbook,

· Select a fellow student’s response and compare and contrast your thoughts with theirs.

· Advance the conversation; provide a real-world application and experiential examples.

· Conceptually discuss your key [most significant] learning insight or take-away from the selected forum topic comments.

· The postings are to be respectful and supportive in tone.

Student Response: CHOOSE 1 among the 3 responses to respond to!!!!

Response #1

1) If PPI elects to challenge the ordinance in court, would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide PPI’s lawsuit? Explain.

If PPI elects to challenge the ordinance in court, a federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide PPI’s lawsuit because they are claiming the ordinance is suppressing first amendment rights which is protected by the US Constitution. Federal court will also have personal matter jurisdiction as they have an office in the state, are soliciting business in the state, and transacting business in the state. (Sukys & Brown, 2017)

2 D Do you think PPI should win its lawsuit on the grounds that its First Amendment rights have been violated? Explain.

PPI should win the lawsuit. “For sale” signs placed by businesses are considered a protected first amendment right based on the precedent ofLinmark Associates, Inc v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977) (Jourdan, Hawkins, Abrams, & Winson-Geideman) Signs are considered a form of speech, a for sale sign is one of the best ways to communicate to consumers, and are therefore protected by the first amendment.

3) Assume PPI sues the city in federal district court and wins. Can the City appeal the trial court’s decision, and what court will hear the appeal? Explain.

The City can appeal the federal courts judgement if there was a legal error in the trial. The Federal Court of Appeals would hear the case. In the case of an appeal, the next level higher court is where the appeal will be filed. Since the original case was filed in the district federal court, the federal court of appeals would be the next level court for the appeal to be filed.

Works Cited

Jourdan, D., Hawkins, H. G., Abrams, R., & Winson-Geideman, K. (n.d.). A Legal and Technical Explorationof On-Premise Sign Regulation: An Evidence Based Model Sign Code.

Sukys, p. A., & Brown, G. W. (2017). Business Law with UCC Applications. New York: McGrw-Hill Education.

Response #3

If party elects to challenge the ordinance in court, would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide party’s lawsuit? Explain.

Yes. This case involves a Federal question concerning the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court has subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction to hear and decide PPI’s lawsuit, based on the grounds that it violates PPI’s right to freedom of speech. However, if the court is challenged by subject matter jurisdiction it can look at personal jurisdiction first, without considering the subject matter jurisdiction validity question (Sukys & Brown, 2017).

Do you think PPI should win its lawsuit on the grounds that its First Amendment rights have been violated? Explain.

Yes. In the case of City of Ladue, et al. v. Margaret P. Gilleo, 114 S.Ct. 2038, the District Court found the sign ordinance unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court agreed, finding that the town’s interest in regulating signs does not outweigh its residents’ right to free speech (Janicki, 1998). Yard signs such as “For Sale” or “For Rent” were found to be a form of communication and considered to have been a for a long time an important and distinct medium of expression. However, some County governments still have tried to put restrictions on sign size, sign placement, and length of time a sign could remain in place. PPI has assured the City that it would take responsibility for insuring the children’s’ safety by making the signs even smaller and at a safe distance away.

Assume PPI sues the city in federal district court and wins. Can the City appeal the trial court’s decision, and what court will hear the appeal? Explain.

Yes. The City has the right to appeal if they have an issue with the trial proceedings, the law that was applied, or how the law was applied (Courts, n.d.). The unhappy party can also appeal because they feel that the law the court applied violates the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would hear the appeal.

References
Courts, U. S. (n.d.). About the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Retrieved from USCourts.gov: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/about-us-courts-appeals

Janicki, M. M. (1998, October 5). OLR Research Report . Retrieved from CGA.CT.Gov: https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/98-R-1189.htm

Sukys, P. A., & Brown, G. W. (2017). Business Law with UCC Applications (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Response #4

1) If PPI elects to challenge the ordinance in court, would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide PPI’s lawsuit? Explain.

         A federal district court would in fact have subject matter jurisdiction due to the fact that this is being posed as a violation of the First Amendment.  Cases that can be brought to the federal district court are ones in which pertain to limitations on a party’s Constitutional rights or other federally imposed rule.

2) Do you think PPI should win its lawsuit on the grounds that its First Amendment rights have been violated? Explain.

In regards to this case, I do in fact believe that PPI should win its case. Although precautionary measures can be taken for instances, such as this aforementioned accident, to be prevented, I think there are ways to go about this that doesn’t interfere with the company’s business practices and this limit their ability to advertise. It is not likely that instances with children being harmed would in this type of scenario would be frequent. I can see where they may impose different sanctions on the sizing of advertisement but I do believe that removing all signage would be deemed a violation of the first Amendment rights.

3) Assume PPI sues the city in federal district court and wins. Can the City appeal the trial court’s decision, and what court will hear the appeal? Explain.

If desired, the city could choose to bring the case to the U.S. court of Appeals. In this case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would be the court in which this case could be re-tried in an appellate manner. However, the appellate court will only hear these cases if they deem that the federal district court has, in some way, misused their power or made an error in regard to the federal law. The other component that would come into play would be whether there was a critical piece of information lacking from the original trial. Due to the fact that this case would be considered one pertaining to Constitutional rights, this would be tried first in the district court before moving up the chain to the Circuit Courts for appeal.

This case, in essence, could be brought all the way to the Supreme Court due to the nature of the issue being of federal and constitutional relation. Temporary signage has been an issue that has been addressed by the Supreme Court as well. If they were to choose to, they could attempt to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court for decision. The fairness of the standards that specific entities, or private versus public residences, could pose a larger issue among stifling one’s freedom of speech on their own property (Supreme Court Ruling Creates Need for Clear Guidelines in Temporary Signage, 2015).

References:

“Supreme Court Ruling Creates Need for Clear Guidelines in Temporary Signage.” PRWeb Newswire 19 June 2015. Business Insights: Global. Web. 6 Mar. 2019.

Suyks, P. A., & Brown, G. W. (2017). Business Law with UCC Applications (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Original Discussion Forum Prompt:

Shortly after graduating from Davenport, you obtain a job working for Practical Professional Solutions, Inc. (“PPSI”), a professional consulting firm that provides business and government regulatory advice to hundreds of professional businesses located throughout west Michigan. One of PPSI’s most distinguished clients is Prime Parcels, Inc. (“PPI”), a local real estate brokerage firm that does business in several west Michigan counties.

PPI is upset about a recent local ordinance adopted by the City of Dunesbury, a charming residential community located near the shore of Lake Michigan. The ordinance in question prohibits any type of “yard sign” or other form of “commercial advertising” placed on private residential property “regardless of the location of the sign or the content of its message.”

Upon doing some investigation, you learn that the ordinance was adopted in response to a horrible traffic accident that recently occurred in Dunesbury. According to the police report, two neighborhood children engaged in a game of “hide and seek” were struck and killed by a passing motorist when they unexpectedly darted into the street from behind a large yard sign placed on the street corner advertising a garage sale. In order to “protect neighborhood children” by preventing such a horrible occurrence from ever happening again, the Dunesbury City Council has decided “in the interest of public safety” to enact a complete ban prohibiting any and all yard signs “advertising any type of sale of any sort.”

PPI is opposed to the ordinance because it will prevent its sales agents from placing “For Sale” signs on residential properties that have been listed for sale with PPI. During a telephone conversation, PPI’s Executive Vice President Bernie Whitman informs you that he understands the City’s concern for the safety of its children. “However,” Bernie tells you, “our For Sale signs are so small that children at play won’t be enticed to hide behind them, and if the City wants us to, we can even make the signs smaller.” Whitman also tells you that “we can make sure our agents place the signs at a safe distance away so that, even if children were to hide behind them, passing motorists would not pose an increased danger to child safety.”

PPI wishes to file a lawsuit challenging the ordinance on the grounds that it violates PPI’s right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Answer the following questions:

1) If PPI elects to challenge the ordinance in court, would a federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide PPI’s lawsuit? Explain.

2) Do you think PPI should win its lawsuit on the grounds that its First Amendment rights have been violated? Explain.

3) Assume PPI sues the city in federal district court and wins. Can the City appeal the trial court’s decision, and what court will hear the appeal? Explain.

The post Business Law #1: Responses appeared first on superioressaypapers.

]]>

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"