Even though the informal actions are never governed by the statute, such activities are common in the judiciary and are “the lifeblood of the administrative processes”. Agencies’ actions are informal and they experience discretion when tasked to decide between two or more alternatives, therefore by quantifying discretion as either too much or less and failing to adequately check them, is the public and petitioner that fall victims of the injustice.
Agencies are mandated to perform law enhancement duties such promulgation of regulations to further their mandates, prosecution of administrative issues like criminal matters, decide whom to investigate and prosecute; whether to settle a case after, during or before a prosecution. Moreover, they process claims and applications by stabling policies and practices to govern such claims processing activities.
Discretion has got both its merit and demerit but in most cases, it can be used as a tool to acquire justices in the court of law; even though agencies judgments are deemed to be final; like in the case of the brother-in-law to the representative agency, he can appeal their decisions when they feel unsatisfied and in that case, the Supreme Court can set it aside and examined if the agency’s interpretations decision opposes the statute. However, the court in its jurisdiction, in most case normally upheld the agency’s decision even though it may disagree with it.
The statute suit under ʧ 1983 describe unions like the Society to Control Unwed Mothers (SCUM) as persons and they can hence seek redress under the statute ʧ1983, however they may not sue Ruth for violation of privileges and civil right violation because immunities clause is not included in the protection offered by the provision. Ruth works for park department is a local form of government that cannot be sued but Ruth as an individual may be sued by an individual for violation of human rights but my seek liability from the government. The statutes’ goal is to prevent organizations, individuals and states from violating the fourteenth amendment civil rights and provide compensation to the offended plaintiffs.
The case issue.
In the case between John Erhard (petitioner) and the Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (respondent), prior to begin his new job as a ranch hand assigned to the “new barn” calving facility of the respondent, the petitioner broke his leg while was moving into the new house provided by his employer. The respondent denies claims for compensation benefits claiming that the petitioner was not yet employed at the time of his accident.
Analysis.
The petitioner had moved to the respondent ranch some days prior to the date that he was to commence his work for employees were offered housing within the ranch. Amongst the paperwork that the petitioner filled were the; General Job Description for employees to be fully signed before commencement of work, application for employment that was never signed and employee portion form 1-9 that were never accompanied with necessary documents. The petitioner claimed that he never received any monetary compensation.
Ruling.
The court held that the petitioner was not an employee at the time of his accident and as a result hence, the respondent was not liable for his claims.
Conclusion.
The case was governed by the 2009 version compensation act and to determine if the petitioner was liable for compensation, the court had to determine whether he was indeed an employee to the firm and for the act, there were contract between them.
Judgment.
The petitioner was not entitled liable to the medical bills and indemnity benefits, moreover, he wasn’t entitled to costs and or penalties on the case.
In my opinion therefore, I would too upheld the court’s ruling for justice was served to the person who deserved it. In conclusion therefore, laws are made direct and correct the wrong but when insufficiently interpreted, the public and normal citizens are the ones to suffer hence the creation of the fourteenth amendment civil rights statute law ʧ1983.
