Decisions in the News
John M. Stephenson v. Ron Neal John M. Stephenson was convicted and sentenced to death for a triple homicide in 1996. Stephenson was charged in Indiana with murdering three people and jointly related crimes. Stephenson appealed this decision twice on the account he was wearing a stun belt during the decision. The courts had overturned one and have yet to decide if they will choose the death penalty or hold a new hearing without the stun belt, or maybe even seek a lesser sentence by holding the hearing before the judge. This article was found on www.theindianalawyer.com I thought the article was lacking in detail, but that could be because the case was from 1996 and has continued to present day. Although lacking detail …show more content…
Kraft Heinz Co Consumers sued Kraft Heinz Co for mislabeling to deceive buyers on their “100% grated Parmesan cheese”. Consumers believed because the ingredients stated it contained cellulose filling the labels were wrong because the container was not filled with “100% grated Parmesan cheese”. The U.S. judge dismissed this lawsuit due to the fact that there is a label of ingredients, additives are needed for a dairy product to not have to be refrigerated, and the 100% could mean it is just 100% grated v. 100% cheese. This article was found on www.reuters.com I thought the article was hilarious, it just seems like anyone can sue for some of the weirdest things. I was surprised to see that Kraft Heinz Co was being sued, especially by more than one consumer, the reason behind it was ludicrous to me. I agree with the decision to dismiss the lawsuit because the label is not misleading, the 100% can mean more than one thing, and for a cheese to last as long as it does without refrigeration is reason enough to know that the cheese would have additives. I sell cheese for a living and I know for a fact that real Parmesan once grated will only last forty-five days maximum cold and one-day maximum if left out of refrigeration. I did not learn anything new about the law, nor am I more informed, this article drew me in for the purpose of the ludicrous
John M. Stephenson v. Ron Neal John M. Stephenson was convicted and sentenced to death for a triple homicide in 1996. Stephenson was charged in Indiana with murdering three people and jointly related crimes. Stephenson appealed this decision twice on the account he was wearing a stun belt during the decision. The courts had overturned one and have yet to decide if they will choose the death penalty or hold a new hearing without the stun belt, or maybe even seek a lesser sentence by holding the hearing before the judge. This article was found on www.theindianalawyer.com I thought the article was lacking in detail, but that could be because the case was from 1996 and has continued to present day. Although lacking detail …show more content…
Kraft Heinz Co Consumers sued Kraft Heinz Co for mislabeling to deceive buyers on their “100% grated Parmesan cheese”. Consumers believed because the ingredients stated it contained cellulose filling the labels were wrong because the container was not filled with “100% grated Parmesan cheese”. The U.S. judge dismissed this lawsuit due to the fact that there is a label of ingredients, additives are needed for a dairy product to not have to be refrigerated, and the 100% could mean it is just 100% grated v. 100% cheese. This article was found on www.reuters.com I thought the article was hilarious, it just seems like anyone can sue for some of the weirdest things. I was surprised to see that Kraft Heinz Co was being sued, especially by more than one consumer, the reason behind it was ludicrous to me. I agree with the decision to dismiss the lawsuit because the label is not misleading, the 100% can mean more than one thing, and for a cheese to last as long as it does without refrigeration is reason enough to know that the cheese would have additives. I sell cheese for a living and I know for a fact that real Parmesan once grated will only last forty-five days maximum cold and one-day maximum if left out of refrigeration. I did not learn anything new about the law, nor am I more informed, this article drew me in for the purpose of the ludicrous