You have an employee who has a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes him to be severely unstable. The medication that is available to deal with this schizophrenic condition is extremely powerful and decreases the taker’s life span by one to two years for every year that the user takes it. You know that this doctors and family believe that it is in his best interest to take the medication. What course of action should you follow?

Chapter 2 – Business Ethics

1. You have an employee who has a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes him to be severely unstable. The medication that is available to deal with this schizophrenic condition is extremely powerful and decreases the taker’s life span by one to two years for every year that the user takes it. You know that this doctors and family believe that it is in his best interest to take the medication. What course of action should you follow?

Chapter 3 – Civil Dispute Resolution

2. While driving his car in Virginia, Carpe Diem, a resident of North Carolina, stuck Butt, a resident of Alaska. As a result of the accident, Butt suffered more than $80,000 in medical expenses. Butt would like to know if he personally serves the proper papers to Diem whether he can obtain jurisdiction against Diem for damages in the following courts:
3. Alaska state trial court
4. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (includes Alaska)
5. Virginia state trial court
6. Virginia federal district court
7. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (includes Virginia and North Carolina)
8. Virginia equity court
9. North Carolina state trial court

Chapter 4 – Constitutional Law

3. Maryland enacted a statute prohibiting any producer or refiner of petroleum products from operating retail service stations within the state. The statute also required that any producer or refiner discontinue operating its company-owned retail service stations. Approximately 3,800 retail service stations in Maryland sell more than twenty different brands of gasoline. All of this gasoline is brought in from other states, as no petroleum products are produced or refined in Maryland. Only 5 percent of the total number of retailers are operated by a producer or refiner. Maryland enacted the statute because a survey conducted by the state comptroller indicated that gasoline stations operated by producers or refiners had received preferential treatment during periods of gasoline shortage. Seven major producers and refiners brought an action challenging the statute on the ground that it discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Are they correct? Explain.

Week 4 Questions

4. In 1967, large oil reserves were discovered in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska. As a result, State revenues increased from $124 million in 1969 to $3.7 billion in 1981. In 1980, the State legislature enacted a dividend program that would distribute annually a portion of these earnings to the State’s adult residents. Under the plan, each citizen eighteen years of age or older receives one unit for each year of residency subsequent to 1959, the year Alaska became a State. Crawford, a resident since 1978, brings suit challenging the dividend distribution plan as violative of the equal protection guarantee. Did the dividend program violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?  Explain.

5. The McClungs own Ollie’s Barbecue, a restaurant located a few blocks from the interstate highway in Birmingham, Alabama, with dining accommodations for whites only and a take-out service for blacks.  In the year preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the restaurant had purchased a substantial portion of the food it served from outside the state.  The restaurant has refused to serve blacks since its original opening in 1927 and asserts that if it were required to serve blacks it would lose much of its business.  The McClungs sought a declaratory judgment to render unconstitutional the application of the Civil Rights Act to their restaurant because their admitted racial discrimination did not restrict or significantly impede interstate commerce.  Decision?