PLW LAW CASE STUDY

PLW LAW CASE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Citations2

PREFACE3

POINT OF APPEAL4

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT16

ARGUMENT ON APPEAL17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Citations2

PREFACE3

POINT OF APPEAL4

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT16

ARGUMENT ON APPEAL17

Citations

Donald J. Diesen, Respondent, v. John Hessburg, et al., Petitioners, Appellants

455 N.W.2d 446; 1990 Minn. LEXIS 136; 17 Media L. Rep. 1849

PREFACE

In this Brief, the Petitioner Charles Edwards will be referred to as Edwards, while the Respondent Richard Kent will be referred to as Kent.

POINT OF APPEAL

This Court should gave appropriate answers the question in the negative and find that the statement made Richard Kent over the phone does not play any part in the termination of the job of Charles Edwards and the problems that Charles Edwards had to face in obtaining a job in the future.

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

The said lawsuit has arisen out of the termination of the Plaintiff, Edwards from his post as a officer with the local Police in the City of Coyote Creek in Quentin County. The Plaintiff began probationary employment as a police officer there in the year May, 2Oxx. At that time, Edwards was 35 years old, and in the same year, in July, he started dating a woman, of the local community, who was 18-year-old. Her name was Ms. Olivia Owens; and in September, Ms. Olivia moved in to live with him. In January, Plaintiff was notified by the City that it would not continue his probationary employment as a police officer.

The case started with Ms. Kate, who was the daughter of Kent (The respondent), when she started dating with Mr. Nicholos, who was a boy from her high school and had passed out from the same school a year or two ago. Ms. Kate was dating with him since some time, and her father i.e. Richard Kent was not in support of her child dating with Mr. Nicholos. Then one day, Ms. Kate went out and told her parents that she was going to her friends place, but instead she went out for a date with Mr. Nicholos. When Kent came to know about this lie by her daughter, he went mad and called her daughter, Kate, and talked with Mr. Nicholos, and asked him to return his daughter and said that he would call the law enforcement agencies if he needed to do so. Mr. Nicholos had made a claim that, when Kent had called him to take his daughter back to home, he had used the word, “Charles the child molester” to describe the police officer, i.e. Mr. Charles Edwards. After that incident, Charles Edwards was removed from his post and he was given the reason that there were reports that he was a bit too overzealous regarding his duties and the citizens were not happy with his job. At that time, he came to know about the fact that Kent called him as “Charles the child molester,” and he had sued Kent for playing a part in damaging his reputation in the society ...