Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/20

Click to flip

20 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
da cut out misdemeanants from housing-- Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 235 Wis.2d 610, 612 N.W.2d 69 (2000).
da cut out misdemeanants from housing-- Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 235 Wis.2d 610, 612 N.W.2d 69 (2000). The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a rezoning classification of land from rural development to general agricultural stated a valid civil rights claim for violation of the landowner’s rights to equal protection of law, because the landowner did not have adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the rezoning change.
false imprisonment 2 ==
false imprisonment 2 ==an intentional tort that the plaintiff will be confined to a pre-defined areaas a result
They got mad aboutheariung bout the law= Faulkner v holliday 1982 Dartey versus zach 1989%3c�:c�
They got mad aboutheariung bout the law= Faulkner v holliday 1982 Dartey versus zach 1989%3c�:c�
orexample, in Eserhut v. Heister, a Washington court found that an employee canbe liable for intentionally interfering with a coworker’s contractual relationshipwith the employer resulting in the coworker’s resignation. At
orexample, in Eserhut v. Heister, a Washingto
Ciss Cause of action 3Breach of Contract. As mentioned previously, employer policiesagainst workplace harassment are becoming broader and broader, resulting inincreased complaints, and opening the door to a breach of contract claim. Indeed, policies that do not justprohibit unlawful harassment but prohibit “all forms of harassment” in theworkplace could become the basis for a breach of contract lawsuit by anemployee victimized by the jerk at work.В9
Ciss Cause of action 3Breach of Contract. As mentioned previously, employer policiesagainst workplace harassment are becoming broader
Ciss cause of action 1IntentionalInfliction of Emotional Distress. The primary legal theorypursued against workplace bullying is the intentional infliction of emotionaldistress. To state a cause of action for intentionalinfliction of severe emotional distress in Minnesota a plaintiff must show thefollowing four elementsKm9F2
Ciss cause of action 1IntentionalInfliction of Emotional Distress.
Widespred sexual favoritis vbroderick verus ruder 1988tracZ
Widespred sexual favoritis vbroderick verus ruder 1988tracZ
. To state a cause of action for intentionalinfliction of severe emotional distress in Minnesota a plaintiff must show thefollowing four elements:1. the conduct must beextreme and outrageous;2. the conduct must beintentional or recklessibit K[
. To state a cause of action for intentionalinfliction of severe emotional distress in Minnesota a plaintiff must show thefollowing four elements:1. the conduct must beextreme and outrageous;2. the conduct must beintentional or recklessibit K[
22 Tostate a cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distressin Minnesota a plaintiff must show the following four elements;3. it must cause emotionaldistress; and4. the distress must besevere.14
22 Tostate a cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distressin Minnesota a plaintiff must show the following four elements: 3. it must cause emotionaldistress; and4. the distress must besevere.14
Rav versus saint paul 1988 scalia said that sexual fighting words arenot protected by the first amendment under title 7 B
Rav versus saint paul 1988 scalia said that sexual fighting words arenot protected by the first amendment under title 7 B
42 usc 1983 City Madison cda were acting like lawyers when theydeniedmatt housing giffin versus city of opalacka 2002 =size: P
42 usc 1983 City Madison cda were acting like lawyers when theydeniedmatt housing giffin versus city of opalacka 2002 =size:.w
Wearing doo rag Abramson versus William pattersin college 20011h
Wearing doo rag Abramson versus William pattersin college 20011hfree exercise clause
For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity
For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see
ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Suarez versus pueblo 2000 throwing you out of a place<2k

Suarez versus pueblo 2000 throwing you out of a place<2k

Shaver verus indep 2003 = ada hostile environment under title 7Hp$0i
Shaver verus indep 2003 = ada hostile environment under title 7Hp$0i
kastener verus 2nd avenue 2003 = adea hostile environmentunder title 7
kastener verus 2nd avenue 2003 =
section7 a.1.c.=the boss is responsible for youleaving ciss=EN-US ���2�
section7 a.1.c.
pretext tommy a bigger crook than Christine=riche versus independence2008/ht7n
pretext tommy a bigger crook than Christine=
test versus consolidated 2007= you are supposed to weork dangerous
test versus consolidated 2007= you are supposed to weork dangerous