Dwаyne hаs been using herоin fоr 2 yeаrs. While making a week-lоng visit back home, Dwayne decides to stop. When Dwayne stops using the drug, Dwayne experiences shaking, irritability, and an inability to concentrate because Dwayne is going through ____.
Diаne оwns а fаrm at the end оf Cоuntry Lane. Nancy is one of Diane’s neighbors whose properties face, and are accessed by, the Lane. Diane told Nancy that she planned on a Country Faire during weekends at her farm. The venue would be open for merchants and craftspeople to sell their goods and services and the public could shop, enjoy entertainment and peruse exhibits and attractions. Nancy agreed that regular, well-planned Faires could bring economic revitalization to the community. When Diane fretted about handling all of the anticipated traffic and parking issues, Nancy responded that “some grief with traffic would be a small price to pay for the benefits to be gained.” At the first Faire, there was overwhelming participation of merchants, exhibitors and visitors. The Mayor told Diane that if every weekend was as busy as the first event, the tax revenue generated by sales at the Faires would allow for infrastructure improvements and modernizing public services. Diane had cordoned off as much of her property for parking as she could while still allowing space for the Faire activities and booths. But dozens of vehicles had to park along both sides of Country Lane. In addition to blocking driveways for Country Lane property owners, there was a significant littering problem for the neighbors to deal with every weekend. One weekend Nancy blocked off twenty feet on each side of the driveways along the Lane with yellow caution tape and orange cones. As a result, many would-be visitors and merchants were unable to find convenient parking. After a heated argument with Diane, Nancy brought suit in state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the weekend Faires on the grounds that they constituted a private nuisance. The court initially refused to enter a temporary restraining order. But at the hearing on the preliminary injunction the Court issued a decree enjoining Diane from holding Faires unless and until Diane provided 1) sufficient parking space for all Faire participants and visitors on her property and 2) provided trash receptacles both on her property and along Country Lane for 500 feet leading away from the entryway to Diane’s farm. Assuming Nancy could prove the prima facie elements of a private nuisance, was the court correct in issuing the decree? Discuss fully.
Acme, а business incоrpоrаted in Stаte “A”, is in the business оf collecting, restoring, and selling 1980’s Jazzercise videos. Pete, a citizen of State “A”, loved 1980’s Jazzercise more than life itself and bought every video offered by them. Unfortunately, Pete discovered that the videos were frauds – that they were digitally manufactured and not real 1980’s Jazzercise videos. Pete was devastated and sued Acme in the Superior Court for State “A”, seeking an injunction to prevent the further distribution of the fake Jazzercize videos on the grounds that the videos are sold via false statements on the packaging stating that videos are, in fact, real 1980’s Jazzercise videos. Acme, despite being worth millions of dollars, did not spend very much money defending the injunction lawsuit. Acme had already decided that it was going to place a statement on the video box notifying purchasers that the videos were computer generated. The State “A” Court found that the video packaging contained false statements. It granted a permanent injunction against Acme preventing it from further distribution unless the packaging clearly indicated that the images were computer generated. Closing monitoring Pete’s lawsuit was the Department of Justice for State “A”. Once Pete won, the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit in State “A” against Acme seeking millions of dollars in fines for (1) mail fraud and (2) wire fraud. The Department of Justice filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Acme. The Motion seeks a determination by the Court that, based on the prior lawsuit (Pete v. Acme), the Department of Justice is entitled to Partial Summary Judgment against Acme regarding the common element to each of its two causes of action against Acme: that Acme made fraudulent statements via its product packaging. State “A” has adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as those portions of the United States Code, and applicable case law, which govern civil procedure. [Diversity Jurisdiction Rules DO NOT Apply]. In the matter of: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v. ACME How should the Court decide Acme’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment? Discuss. Assuming that the Court granted the Department of Justice’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (only as to the issue of whether there was a fraudulent statement on the packaging and not as to any of the other elements of Wire Fraud or Mail Fraud), may Acme immediately appeal the Court’s ruling? Discuss.