Question Six
The representative in selecting which cases to prosecute and which ones not to proceed with is exercising prosecutorial agency. Under the same, the agency through its representatives elects to prosecute those cases that given its resource base and core objectives, it considers worthwhile to prosecute. According to the representative, the case involving his brother in law falls in the anticipated category. The problem with discretion is that it may be subject of abuse and in some cases may not have been abused in real sense but may appear so.
The court is, therefore, called upon to review the discretion exercised in light of the appeal brought forth by the victim. In this case, the standard of review should be that of objectivity. This is to mean the court must divorce itself from its own internal biases and favoritism and consider the issues wholesomely keenly assessing for cases of abuse of discretion. It is the court’s determination that would determine the fate of the case.
Question Seven
The Society to Control Unwed Mothers (SCUM) has a strong case against Ruth. The society may seek for damages for the discrimination visited upon them by the local government courtesy of Ruth. It is imperative to note that their claim falls under the 1983 civil claims. It is clear that the action of Ruth in imposing the $10000 permit fee is ill informed and actuated by malice. As such the plaintiff can contest that their Fourteenth Amendment rights which confers to them the rights granted by the Constitution and the protection of the law has been violated. In proving this and for the case to succeed, the plaintiff needs to pursue the three part test of proof which shall be briefly discussed in the next section.
First, the plaintiff needs to prove that the action in question was committed by a federal, state or local government. In the case, Ruth works for the City Parks Department and her actions are in representation of the City. The first question is therefore answered in the affirmative. The second question relates to whether the conduct of Ruth was due to policy, custom or ordinance. This is equally answered in the affirmative since the conduct of Ruth though discretional is on behalf of the City which operates on statute (read ordinance). The third and final question in proving the case is whether the action referred to was committed in the color of the law and that in the process a violation of a federal entitlement occurred. This is equally answered in the affirmative. It is on that premise that this paper asserts that SCUM has a strong case against the City.
Question Three: John Erhard v Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation
Issues
The main issue was whether the petitioner was an employee and therefore entitled to compensation enjoyed by employees who are injured in the course of duty. The court’s determination was therefore was whether the petitioner given the circumstances was an employee despite having not fulfilled the conditions precedent.
Analysis
The court had to address the issue of who is an employee. The court observed that an employee was/is a person under the service of an employer and that this state must have been so expressed formally. It was held that since Erhard had not met the conditions precedent, he was not an employee as envisaged in the laws of the State of Montana.
Ruling
Erhard was not an employee and was therefore not entitled to any compensation which was exclusively for employees. The Court held that Erhard given the conditions was not validly an employee and that since he was not an employee he was not entitled to any compensation.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Erhard’s petition on the ground that he was not rightly an employee as envisaged by the law. The Court considered the position of the law and so it wise to apply the letter of the law and not the spirit.
.
