BLW 342 Exam 2 Cases Question and answers 100% correct
0 view 0 purchase
Course
BLW 342
Institution
BLW 342
BLW 342 Exam 2 Cases Question and answers 100% correct
Arthur Anderson v. U.S. - correct answer Year: 2005
Court: Supreme Court of the U.S.
Information:
- Corporate liability
- Accounting firm hired by Enron was notified of a pending SEC investigation.
- Anderson advised Enron of their "...
BLW 342 Exam 2 Cases Question and
answers 100% correct
Arthur Anderson v. U.S. - correct answer ✔Year: 2005
Court: Supreme Court of the U.S.
Information:
- Corporate liability
- Accounting firm hired by Enron was notified of a pending SEC investigation.
- Anderson advised Enron of their "document retention policy" to destroy
documents that were evidence of criminal liability
Verdict:
- Sent back to new jury of Court of Appeals bc did not understand meaning of
"corruptly persuades"
- Anderson charged for knowingly persuading other persons to withhold/alter
documents in an official proceeding
Miles v. Wal-Mart Stores - correct answer ✔Year: 2008
Court: U.S. District Court (W.D. Arkansas)
Information:
- A woman was being harassed at work.
- Her boss asked her to shred documents, and she would not do it.
- She was being intimidated at work.
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Issue: Whether or not she is protected as a whistleblower
Verdict:
- Plaintiff creates genuine issues as to facts she must prove to prevail on her
claim
, - Walmart was denied summary judgement
Engler v. Winfrey - correct answer ✔Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Information:
- Issue: Whether the Oprah Winfrey show and one of its guest knowingly and
falsely depicted beef as unsafe in wake of British Mad Cow Disease.
Verdict:
- Case was removed to Federal district court by motion since the sayings were
based on truth the court affirmed the district courts
- Affirmed the decision in favor of Winfrey
Burns v. Masterbrand Cabinets - correct answer ✔Year: 2007
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District
Information:
- Burns was an employee at Masterbrand who suffered an injury --> filed a
workers compensation claim --> Masterbrand gave it to a private investigation
company --> employee of investigation company invaded his home pretending
to be looking for a juvenile kid to figure out the extent of Burns' injuries
- Case was initially dismissed because IL court didn't recognize intrusion upon
seclusion
invasion of privacy
- Can be seen as intrusion upon seclusion
Verdict:
- Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and remanded the case
for further proceedings in favor of Plaintiff Burns.
Doe v. McLean County - correct answer ✔Year: 2012
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Academia199. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
