Family Law and State Cases, Case Study Example

Commerce Trust Company v Alexander Chandler et al Co-Receivers

Facts

Claims of injuries from the military contractor’s water treatment process and waste disposal system in the combat area presented a political question that could not be justified.There was no evidence of derivative sovereign immunity barring the claims.

Issue

The military contractor responsible for water management and waste disposal conducted his operations against public expectations resulting in injuries to individuals.

Decision

According to the court’s decision in Commerce Trust Company v Alexander Chandler et al Co-Receivers, dismiss claims was vacated. The case was remanded thus paving way for further proceedings.

Reasoning

There was unclear justification regarding the extent of military control over the practices of the contractor. If military could be having control over the contractor’s practices, then it could bear partial responsibility for the crime. The responsibility could bebased on military’s direct dictation over the process of water management and waste disposal or having allowed the activities to be conducted in an unjust manner. The case did not present military orders that were meant to direct the contractor’s exercise. Consequently, the uncertainty in the orders obtained from the court paralyzed further proceedings that were meant to avail the exact contract orders given by the military to the contractors.Furthermore, it is evident that such contracts have predetermined operational guidelines. It was also unclear whether the contract offered by the military required the contractor to deviate from some of the terms of the contract. This could have provided evidence as to whether the contractor or the military contract provider was responsible for the injuries that resulted from the contract.

Observation

According to the Federal Tort Claims, even though the activities of the contractor aided the military, the waiver exception of sovereign immunity was not applicable when there was no evidence regarding the integration of the contractor into the military command chain.

Richard Alexander Chandler, appellant v The State of Texas

Facts

The defendant, either knowingly or unknowingly was responsible for the death of the victim. The defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim.The defendant’s ill intentions were responsible for the death of the victim.

Issue

The victim had been killed as a result of strangulation. The defendant is deemed to be the murderer of the victim.

Decision

According to the court’s decision in Richard Alexander Chandler, appellant v The State of Texas, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Reasoning

The victim was linked to the murder since he mentioned to his sister, uncle and mother that he had done something rather bad thus needed funding to get out of town.A study conducted on the victim’s scratch marks and bruises indicated that strangulation could have been responsible for the victim’s death. The defendant straddled the chest of the victim while the latter lay face-up on the floor. The defendant put a “sleeper hold” on the neck of the victim. The evidence was both factually and legally sufficient to convict the defendant for having murdered the victim. However, according to the Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (2), a person is said to have committed murder if she/he knowingly or intentionally commits the crime, or has intentions to commit serious bodily injury resulting into an act that is dangerous to human life thus resulting in death. Based on the case, the defendant met HN1 requirements thus was found guilty without the necessity of evaluating his state of consciousness prior to the crime.

Observations

The court paved way for defendant’s mistrial motion. This was meant to further question the defendant about his past history of drug use. However, the question was disregarded by the court since there was sufficient evidence to declare the defendant guilty.

Work cited

Choudhry S and Herring J, Family Law and state cases (OUP 2010). Print.