Legal Knowledge: Statutes from South Carolina, United States

Identify The Statute And Provide a Brief Summary Of It. Did The Company Violate Vicki’s Second Amendment Rights? Why Or Why Not?

Identify The Statute And Provide a Brief Summary Of It. Did The Company Violate Vicki’s Second Amendment Rights? Why Or Why Not?

Did Dunavant’s Prohibition On Weapons Violate The State Statute You Selected? What Advice Would You Provide To The Company And Vicki? 

In Divorce proceedings of South Carolina of United States, there are five factors which are required to be satisfied that is physical cruelty, adultery, habitual drunkenness, abandonment which is dependent on both parties in the suit who are living separately for the maximum period of one year. The mental exploitation or cruel is not the valid ground of divorce in South Carolina. The divorce suit is filed in a particular court which is characterized as Family Courts (Schweizer, 2018). The Jury of the Family Court has the authority to entertain the cases of separation, divorce, custody of the child, and division of marital property which includes pensions and retirement. A separate suit is lodged for divorce action by one of the spouse requesting a divorce from another only if the requirements for the divorce are established and divorce proceeding also covers separate support and maintenance.

In South Carolina of the United States, Food poisoning can be designated as Food which is deliberately or unintentionally contaminated by chemical, microbiological or physical vulnerabilities. The following activities are prohibited under the code of legislation of South Carolina which includes manufacturing and selling of adulterated food or misbranding of food (Mbaé, Mlindassé, Mihidjaé, & Seyler, 2016). It also includes receiving in commerce of any adulterated or contaminated food for the price. The remedies available to the parties affected by the contamination of food can apply for an injunction to the circuit court and that court has jurisdiction to hear the case and allow provisional or permanent injunction prohibiting the person who infringes the provision relating to adulteration of food.

Manslaughter, as designated in South Carolina, is the comparatively lesser crime of murder but is still considered a serious offence. The homicide law of South Carolina defines manslaughter as the killing of one person without any malicious intent which is the essential requirement in case of murder. Thus the crime of manslaughter implies the killing of one person by another in the heat of desire after witnessing a reasonable provocation. A child alleged with manslaughter maybe entertain in Circuit court. Article V of the Constitution of South Carolina laid down that no court which is inferior to Circuit courts can be participated with the jurisdiction to try the offence of manslaughter (Blume & Vann, 2016). The general session court handles with the felony crimes of the maximum sentence is the death penalty.

Did Dunavant’s Prohibition On Weapons Violate The State Statute You Selected? What Advice Would You Provide To The Company And Vicki?

According to unannotated code of laws in South Carolina, the person is said to commit a battery if the person illegally injures another person which cause grave bodily injury to another individual or likely to cause death or severe bodily injury (Ou et al, 2017). The person who commits the offence of the battery may be sentenced for more than twenty years. The circuit court has jurisdiction to entertain offence of battery if the procedures drawn in the legislation is followed

The commercial speech can be defined as the speech on a business with the intention of earning profit. In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld that commercial speech id the speech that suggests business transactions. In order to consider commercial speech as protected speech which is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, there is a mandate that speech must concentrate oh lawful conduct and it must not mislead the public. There are nine categories of commercial speech which are unprotected includes perjury, fighting words, obscenity, blackmail, true threats, incitement to imminent unlawful conduct, defamation, pornography of child (Rothman, 2015). The test to determine whether the commercial speech is constitutional is termed as Central Hudson test which comprises of firstly the speech should concentrate on a lawful activity; secondly, the speech should be substantial in regulating the government interest, the regulation should advance the interest of the government. In the similar case of Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., there is the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which held that the federal prohibition on starting intoxicating content on labels of beer is violating the Coor’s First Amendment on rights of commercial speech. This is one of the landmark cases which enhance the first amendment safeguards for commercial speech. According to Trademark Regulation and Commercial speech doctrine of the United States, there is legislative rules and regulation which prohibit any marks or labels that constitute indecent or obscene. Such restriction imposed on the trademark act stands contrary to the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. The label on any object for commercial profit is not permitted that invites risk to the consumer or to public. Displaying label can also be disapproved if it is proved to be immoral, indecent or scandalous.

The offensive label is one which comprises of the indecent, scandalous or obscene mark which is prohibited by the government for the public interest. This prohibition is applicable for all object whether it is on beer or market toys (Adler, 2016). The restriction on commercial speech is to promote the legitimate interest of the state. Thus even if the obscene label is displayed on market toys, it is not allowed under Trademark laws of the United States which forbids the company from using offensive logos that can affect the sentiment or is detrimental for the citizens. Though the Company is free to exercise freedom of work but is subject to restrictions.

References

Adler, J. H. (2016). Compelled Commercial Speech and the Consumer Right to Know. Ariz. L. Rev., 58, 421.

Blume, J. H., & Vann, L. S. (2016). Forty years of death: The past, present, and future of the death penalty in South Carolina (still arbitrary after all these years). Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 11, 183.

Mbaé, S. B. A., Mlindassé, M., Mihidjaé, S., & Seyler, T. (2016). Food-poisoning outbreak and fatality following ingestion of sea turtle meat in the rural community of Ndrondroni, Mohéli Island, Comoros, December 2012. Toxicon, 120, 38-41.

Ou, X., Yang, C., Xiong, X., Zheng, F., Pan, Q., Jin, C., ... & Huang, K. (2017). A new rGO‐overcoated Sb2Se3 nanorods anode for Na+ battery: in Situ X‐ray diffraction study on a live sodiation/desodiation process. Advanced Functional Materials, 27(13), 1606242.

Rothman, J. E. (2015). Commercial Speech, Commercial Use, and the Intellectual Property Quagmire. Va. L. Rev., 101, 1929.

Schweizer, V. (2018). Divorce Rate in the US: Geographic variation, 2017. Montana, 12, 3-1.