Home
Process
Prices
Get a Discount
About Our Service
Guarantees
Free Essays
FAQ
Contact Us
Free State Ex Gross vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio Essay Sample
1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?
In the case of State Ex Gross vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the matter in question is whether the industrial court abused its mandate by ruling against the appellate receiving temporary compensation for total disability. Considering the fact that Gross consented having received a handbook, the court had to involve the next step which entailed finding more evidence to support the convincing information that the court had against this individual (Walsh 502). It was concluded that Gross left employment voluntarily because he had been involved in misconduct that did not warrant his receipt of compensation for total disability.
2. What is the voluntary abandonment doctrine? Should it have been applied to this case?
The voluntary abandonment principle is whereby an employee intentionally quits employment while they are physically fit at the time of the desertion. It should not have been ruled in favor of the appellate in this case because Gross was negligent of the rules outlined in the safety book.
3. What are practical consequences of this decision? What would have been the consequences if the original decision by the court had been upheld?
By ruling that the appellate had abandoned employment voluntarily, the industrial court had acted beyond its discretion. As such, Gross could not receive total disability compensation had he not appealed. By taking the bold step to appeal against the industrial court's ruling he had set a precedent that could be followed in future by other workers not satisfied with the judgment passed by t he commission.
4. Was the case correctly decided? Why or why not?
In the final conclusion made, the court decision was correct. This is supported by the fact that the appeal made by Gross provided the final rightful decision that served both sides right legally and ethically. If this decision failed to be made, the consequence would be against the will and right of Gross, who deserved his share in the monetary resource of the company for which he had worked for so long (Walsh 509).
2. DIETZ V. FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CORP.
1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?
Some of the legal issues in this case include the question on whether the decision by the court to disapprove Dietz' accusation against Finlay for lack of subject matter, and how much the court justified was favoring Finlay on grounds of; invasion of privacy, defamation and false imprisonment (Walsh 569).
2. What was the basis of Dietz's privacy tort claim? Her infliction of emotional distress claim? Why were they rejected?
Dietz claimed to have been inflicted on emotional distress for having been challenged to court for merely having acted out of lack of knowledge. The supposed reason behind this case was; Dietz having violated the company's policy by acting beyond her mandate. The privacy tort claim was rejected for lack of sufficient evidence to support her claims (Walsh 569).
3. What was the basis of her false imprisonment claim? Her defamation claim? Why was she allowed to go on trail on them? Is she likely to prevail at trail?
Dietz had reason to claim against false imprisonment. This is because she violated the company's policy, not for her personal benefit but for the customer's satisfaction. Additionally, she had sought assistance in the relevant fields within her mandate in vain, and as a consequence, she was pushed into making decisions that favored the customer. She was allowed to go on trail on them in order to get sufficient supporting information for her position in court. However, Dietz is unlikely to prevail in trail because some of her claims are invalid in the court (Leslie 230).
4. What, if anything, should this employer have done differently?
The employer should not have filed a case against the individual for having violated the company's policy. Instead, the proprietor should have deducted an equal amount of money as that she used in compensating for the customer against the company's policy.
