Maryland Cases Analysis - Case Study Example

American Law and Jurisprudence: Maryland Cases Analysis Cases Analysis In the case of the – Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 08-586 (2010) Case – heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (2009, Nov. 2), investors were claiming of the steep fees they had paid to an investment advisor; contrary to set procedure under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In the case, the court was deemed appropriate, in its function of regulating the fees paid to investment advisers; especially those within the mutual fund sector, as regulated in the aforementioned Act. In context, the investors viewed the fees as being not only excessive, but also in breach of fiduciary duty. As the adviser firm, Harris Associates LP was sued by Jones amongst other investors, citing – section 36(b) of the Act. From receiving an adverse finding as passed by the Illinois District Court, Jones appealed, gaining a hearing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 08-586 1). However, in the end, the majority of the Court of Appeals (Maryland) did rule against the claim, citing the lack of judicial authority; regarding the legal regulation of investment company fees. In explanation, the court was of the view that the best regulator of ‘fees’ was the free market-arena itself. Further rejecting the provided line of argumentation, the court also viewed government as not being ‘in-place’; in regard to making such an assessment. Ultimately, the ideal portrayed was that of a strong free-market approach, as opposed to legislative interpretation of prevailing aspects of the existing economy (Jones v. Harris Associates L.P). In effect, the court ruled that when the settling entity/ person charged with a given trust’s (firm) administration made a given decision, it was in essence conclusive. This is in reference to – The Contractarian Basis of the Law of Trusts, 105 Yale L.J. 625 (1995) (Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 08-586 1). In the case of the – Serita J. Weathersby v. Kentucky Fried Chicken National Management Co., No. 92-2360 (1993/4) Case [326 Md. 663, 670, 607, A.2d 8 (1992)] – essentially concerns discrimination within the employment sector, public accommodation and housing. Under focus is the aspect of employment litigation whereby the Maryland Court of Appeals did, and continues to emphasize, on the need of tort law; in regard to intentional infliction of emotional distress, to be utilized sparingly. This should be only in cases of opprobrious behavior that is inclusive of truly outrageous/ extreme conduct; extreme to the nature of going beyond bounds of decency, and hence intolerable within civilized society. in addition, is that the Maryland justice system can and does put consideration to a defendant’s knowledge, of the plaintiff’s peculiar susceptibility to emotional stress, even when being the employer is proven; this in the effect of in any way ‘harassing’ the plaintiff (Weathersby v. Kentucky Fried Chicken National Management Co., No. 92-2360 1). Additionally, is the presence of legal jurisprudence that requires employers not to demand or require; as an employment, continued employment or prospective employment condition, potential and actual employees to submit to lie detector tests or other affiliated tests inclusive of a polygraph test. In the case at hand, as provided by the Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6, which states the citation of unpublished dispositions as being disfavored; this with the exception of establishing estoppels, judicata or any law of the case, the court hearing affirmed a previous hearing. In effect, it backed the adoption of the District Court’s opinion, with regard to the case at hand. This was based on briefs, the record, and oral argument; all which reaffirmed the earlier decision (Weathersby v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Nat. Mngt. Co. 1). In the case of the – Cates v. Taylor 428 So. 2d 637, 640 (Ala. 1983) Case – under Alabama law pertained to a lawsuit against both James K. and Joyce Taylor (defendants), brought up by Roy A. Cates and siblings as the plaintiffs. Under Alabama law, the claim was made on the grounds of possible liability for resulting IIED. Both interference and legal justification, within a solemn occasion, are amongst factors deemed to be essential in a court’s evaluation of individual outrage. In this regard, the plaintiff together with siblings, had wanted to bury their parents together. However, 30 minutes prior to the service, the defendants informed the plaintiff that this would not be possible; thereby upsetting the bereaved family. The above notwithstanding, legal justification is a prime factor on which courts rely, in their subsequent evaluation of outrage (Cates v. Taylor 428 So. 2d 637, 640 1). This is based on the fact that at times, defendants may and do take aggressive steps (legally within their rights); thus courts may less likely find outrage as being sufficiently provable. This is if the defendant was/ is legally justified to act in a given manner towards the plaintiff. In the case at hand, the defendant was not legally justified to act in such a manner, given the short time-frame between notification and the actual burial. In this regard, the defendants were guilty, of the after-shocks; in essence resulting in subsequent suffering from IIED. This was particularly in bad taste as this action unexpectedly caused distress to the plaintiff(s), during such a trying time. Thus, such conduct will also be able to satisfy the element of outrage; given the unethical behavior portrayed (Cates v. Taylor). 2. Memorandum An IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) claim, pertains to a recent origin of intentional conduct (by an individual), which results in emotional distress of an extreme nature (in another individual). Under tort law, it primarily addresses problems that would arise, during application of pertinent common law of assault. In this regard, such a claim would be based on, not the actual/physical occurrence of a threat or violent act; but rather, on the emotional/ psychological distress it would cause on the ‘intended victim.’ Future threats of harm are a prime examples, where while not constituting common law assault, would nevertheless be a/the ‘causal factor’ of emotional harm to the threats’ recipients. Accordingly, as a tort claim, IIED was founded on the basis of guarding ‘victims’ of emotional stress; by way of enabling them receive compensation in situational contexts where this would be barred if regarded within common law contexts. In focus, the claim at hand would be based on the basis of – intentional and/ or reckless act. This would be interpreted under the claim the defendant (Josephine) intentionally acted inhumanly during the plaintiff’s (Daphne) burial day of her late mother. Such action was both distasteful and intentionally offensive, given the mood of the day; getting ready to lay to rest, a ‘departed soul.’ Further still, the defendant’s action may also be deemed as being of outrageous conduct; linking this with the ‘causation’ clause. Ultimately though, is the need for the plaintiff’s attorney(s) to prove ‘the actual suffering of emotional distress’, by the plaintiff under focus. In the Maryland, under tort law, IIED is quite difficult to establish or prove; if filed under the jurisdiction’s – personal injury law. This is based on the stringent measures requisite in proving causation of and/or suffering from IIED. These measures are the accused (defendant’s) conduct was either reckless or intentional; if it was outrageous or extreme in nature; that there is a ‘causal connection’ between emotional distress and the wrongful conduct, and that such emotional distress was/ is severe. In order to meet the fourth criteria, such emotional distress – must be ‘severely disabling… such that no reasonable individual would be expected to endure it.’ In the case under focus, Daphne’s attorney; if within Maryland, would be able to prove the aforementioned four elements, crucial in proving a prima facie case of IIED considered under Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566, 380 A.2d 611 (1977). The first element is that Josephine as the accused, acted recklessly and with intention, when she decided to prolong illegally, the burial procession of Daphne’s mother. This is provable from witness account, as well as the fact that there existed a fore-signed (written) contract between the two, for both a burial space, and all the affiliated funeral services. Secondly, despite Josephine’s knowledge of the day’s activity; given the aforementioned, she can be proved to have acted in an outrageous manner vis-à-vis the funeral schedule. Daphne can also attest to having suffered (both at the time, and later afterwards), from emotional distress because of Josephine’s extreme conduct, despite the gloomy atmosphere. In front of a jury, such evidence would be deemed substantial in the potential and/ likely result of Daphne suffering from severe emotional distress, given the fact that Josephine new of her (Daphne) family’s tragedy. The defendant must argue beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff has not alleged that she has suffered a severe emotional distress, yet there must be a connection between the wrongful act and the emotional distress. In this case, the Maryland court will empahsise that the tort of IIED should used within certain limits and only be used to correct a conduct that is characterized as outrageous and extreme to the extent that the bounds of decency do not apply to it such that it be termed as utter intolerable and atrocious to the community. This can be referred to the ruling made on Kentucky Fried Chicken Natl Mgmt. Co. v. Weathersby, 607 A.2d 8, 326 Md. 663, 670 (1992). The court ruled it as a complex and difficult case to believe that a person would consider sneaking into another person’s home and wait for them to take a bath and then open the shower curtain while a piece of cloth is over his shoulder that appears to conceal a gun as tolerable and possible within the bounds of decency in a civilized society. By looking at what Josephine did, the Maryland court could consider that she caused Daphne extreme emotional distress and is a breach of contract considered under the theory of IIED. Works Cited Cates v. Taylor 428 So. 2d 637, 640 Ala. 1983. Print. Jones v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES LP, 08-586, Supreme Court March 30, 2010. Print Serita J. Weathersby v. Kentucky Fried Chicken National Management Co., No. 92-2360 [326 Md. 663, 670, 607, A.2d 8 Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. 1993/4. Print. Read More