Drunk Driving in the States of Michigan and California - Coursework Example

? Cases and Statutes Kazim Rizvi Four questions have been answered in the following paper with regard to different laws and citations. The first answer looks at a comparison between the statutes regarding drunk driving in the states of Michigan and California and observes their commonalities as well as differences. The second answer consists of a bluebook citation of a case Roe v. Wade and looks at the cases that followed it and preceded it. The third answer is a mix of a number of cases and their parallel citations as well as some objective answers with relation to the cases. The fourth answer is a summary of the case 23 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 41. Keywords: statutes, laws Answer to question 1: Drunk driving is a serious civil offence recognized across the United States of America. The two statutes that I wish to discuss with regard to this topic are Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 257.625 and V C Section 23152. (Michigan laws) According to the statute of Michigan, a person does not have the right to operate a vehicle on either a highway or any place of public while under the influence of alcohol. In such a case, as he is intoxicated, it might lead to injury for both the vehicle and others, not to forget the individual himself. If the person who operates a vehicle after being intoxicated causes the death of a person, he will be charged of a felony or crime. The ‘per se’ blood alcohol level for a person driving in the state of Michigan has to be .08 and his zero tolerance level should not exceed .02. If caught, the person will be implied with the consent of law. If the offence has been committed for the first time, the defendant’s license may be suspended for a period not exceeding 6 months, however, consequently, the suspension period can go up to more than one year as well. After the second time an offense is created, the person will have to do time in jail and undergo education pertaining to alcohol usage. According to the California statute that follows drunk driving, more or less, the law applied is the same as well. It states that it is against the law for an individual to drive or operate a vehicle if he or she is under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. The ‘per se’ blood alcohol level for this statute applied is also .08 and if there is more than that alcohol found in the blood, the person is committing an offense. (California laws) However, the zero tolerance level in California is .01 and the license of the person is only suspended for a period not exceeding for months after the first time that he commits the offense. After the second and third offenses however, the license may be taken away for 2-4 years and unlike the laws applied in Michigan, the vehicle of the person in California may be confiscated after the third time the individual commits the offense of drunk driving. Answer to question 2: Bluebook citation: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973 U.S (1973) This case was dissented by: DA's Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4536, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 945 (U.S. 2009) (129) Earlier case: Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11306 (N.D. Tex. 1970) Later overruled by: Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 48, 53 U.S.L.W. 4135, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34995, 102 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P34633, 27 Wage , &, Hour Cas. (BNA) 65 (1985) Answers for question 3: 566 A.2d 227 Parallel Citation: Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Co. v. Firemen's Ins. of Newark, 236 N.J. Super. 473, 566 A.2d 227, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 385 (App.Div. 1989) (192) No cases give a positive treatment of this case. In fact, only two cases have been cited after it that criticize or cite a dissenting opinion for the same. They are 1. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 192 Misc. 2d 468, 746 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002) 2. GE v. California Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 997 S.W.2d 923, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6732, 99:37 Tex. Civil Op. Serv. 143 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1999) 29 N.W. 425 Parallel Citation: Baugh v. Barrett, 69 Iowa 495, 29 N.W. 425, 1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 277 (1886) Case that followed: Foster v. Byrne, 76 Iowa 295, 35 N.W. 513, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 201 (1887) 639 N.E.2d 1003 Case has been overruled by: Star Charters v. Figueroa, 192 Ill. 2d 47, 733 N.E.2d 1282, 2000 Ill. LEXIS 987, 248 Ill. Dec. 284 (2000)  145 A.2d 482 Parallel Citation: Coughlin v. U. S. Tool Co., 52 N.J. Super. 341, 145 A.2d 482, 1958 N.J. Super. LEXIS 412 (App.Div. 1958) Case that cites for same issue: Vega by Muniz v. Piedilato, 154 N.J. 496, 713 A.2d 442, 1998 N.J. LEXIS 602 (1998) Case that follows: Turpan v. Merriman, 57 N.J. Super. 590, 155 A.2d 266, 1959 N.J. Super. LEXIS 367 (App.Div. 1959) Answers for question 4: Bluebook citation: 23 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 41 Article titled: Toward real workplace equality: Non-subordination and title VII sex-stereotyping jurisprudence. Summary: This article is a very renowned piece of writing written mainly about the causes and reasons for sex stereotyping jurisprudence and how it actually evolved. Since this theme is resembles the lives of most women, it has been brought to the notice of the courts, mainly with focus on Price Waterhouse. The company mentioned to the court that discrimination done on the basis of some given sex stereotypes leads to a violation of the Title VII. (Bartlett, Katharine & Rhode, Deborah) According to the entire article, the court provides a permit for the initiation of introduction to a lot of different forms of gender at the workplace including transsexuals and homosexuals apart from just sex stereotyping against women. The entire articles mainly looks at what is and what is not discrimination on the basis of gender so as to not impose any sort of unequal burden on female employees and that equality should be given through following with the approach of a non-subordinate level of work ethics. Works Cited (Michigan laws) Michigan's Drunk Driving Statute: MCL 257.625 Retrieved from http://www.owidefenselaw.com/drunk_driving_statute.html (California laws) V C Section 23152 Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs Retrieved from http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm (129) 129 S. Ct. 2308 p.2341 174 L. Ed. 2d 38 p.74 (192) 192 Misc. 2d 468 p.470 746 N.Y.S.2d 776 p.778 Bartlett, Katharine & Rhode, Deborah. Gender and Law: Theory, Doctrine, Commentary 399 (4th ed. 2006) Read More