FindLaw, for Legal Professionals, Case Study Example

Richard Alexander Chandler, the petitioner and Texas the defendant in the supreme court of the United States

Facts in the case

Rachel chandler was married to Richard chandler and by virtue of this she was entitled to any benefits associated with the husband. This should happen during marriage and even in an event of divorce. The state through the relevant authorities is supposed to ensure that Rachel gets hers share without the prevention of Richard. The Texas law recognizes that someone is legally married if he/she has a divorce from a previous marriage

Issue

Through the bill of review Richard learnt that Rachel had been involved in previous marriages and she had not sought divorce before entering into the marriage with Richard. Through this Richard wanted the previous judgement quashed on the basis of the bill of review. One of the concerns in this case is that Richard never asked for a declaratory judgement that their marriage was null (par.17). The jury found out that the defendant Mrs. Chandler was not culpable for duping Richard into a union so that she accesses property (par.20). However, the earlier judgement on property division was defeated on the basis of the bill of review. The hallmark of this case is the subsequent cases that the petitioner lodged against the state.

Decision

The court further entered into a judgement against the petitioner restraining him from lodging other cases against the state or Mrs. Chandler.

Reasoning

The concern among the judges is that Mr. Chandler had decided to engage in lengthy legal battles against the authorities. In his subsequent suits he never mentioned Mrs. Chandler as the respondent but he kept on involving several state agencies. The cases were meant to ensure that the state agencies acted in a particular manner. For example, it was apparent that Mr. Chandler wanted the authorities to deport Mrs. Chandler from the United States (par. 30).

Observation

The scenario in this case study reveals that there are cases that raise ambiguity. In this case, after the determination of the prima facie case, he ends up bringing other new suits that have no clear interpretation. It is not upon the authority of Mr. Chandler to influence the deportation of Rachel. The aim of Richard is to use state agencies in punishing Rachel. The lesson here is that the law should be used to seek justice rather than to get self-redemption against the suffering of another party.

Commerce Trust Company v. F. Alexander Chandler et al., Co-Receivers

Facts

The military and contractor of the system for waste disposal and water treatment claimed injuries in the combat area. The claim initiated a political debate that could not be justified. No evidence was found to stop the claims.

Issue

The manner in which the contractor conducted the assigned operations was way below the expectations of the public and alleged not to have fully complied with the military guidelines as well as the task orders. This resulted in injuries to individuals.

Decision

The court decided that the dismiss claims be vacated and case remanded to give way for proceeding to continue.

Reasoning

The justification of the extent to which the military had control over the contractor’s practices did not meet the clarity expectations. The military was to bear partial responsibility for the injuries if at all it had a certain extent of control over the practices of the contractor. All the same, no military orders were presented before the court to justify the extent to which the military had control over the activities of the contractor. Looking at the contractor’s point of view, it was not clear whether the contract awarded specified some deviations from the contract terms. Lack of all these information makes it difficult to determine whether the contractor or the military has a case to answer.

Observation

No application of the waiver exception of sovereign immunity as the integration line between the command chain of the military and the contractor was not well established.

Work cited

FindLaw, For Legal Professionals. Chandler V. Chandler. n.d, Web. 9^th October 2014. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1342065.html.