11-13            Stokes v. Board of Education of Chicago, 599 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2010)

As explained in the case summary, probable cause in the jurisdiction requires the defendant to have enough circumstances to prove that a person or a group of people committed an offense (Kubasek, 2016). I would then say that the principal did not have probable cause. For probable cause to be effective, a person should not be arrested by the police based on mere suspicion. There should be a level of absolute certainty that the suspect committed the crime. In this case, however, the principal saw a situation that seemed like several women were fighting in the school’s office. The principal reasoned based on the conflict claims that happened at Nyokia’s home the previous evening. The requirements around probable cause are a part of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Its goal is to protect citizens from undue intrusion by the government into personal matters. This also means that even the police arrested the four women without probable cause. The lack of probable cause becomes clear when the criminal charges are dropped. In other words, the court did not find a reason (probable cause) to show that the women or defendants committed the crime. There was, therefore, no reason to persecute them.

11-14            Mzamane v. Winfrey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23491 (2010)

The court must have found Oprah Winfrey guilty of the charges of causing emotional distress to Lerato Nomvuyo Mzamane. It would not matter if the jurisdiction must be shown physical injury to prove that the infliction of emotional damage was intentional. Although Mzamane was the headmistress of Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls (OWLAG), she was not the person who behaved abusively towards the students. The act was actually committed by one of the people that work at OWLAG. Winfrey could have tried first to find out what the headmistress knew about the situation, in case the students reported the incident, and what she did about it before saying hurtful words. No injuries or monetary losses occurred during the incident, so Mzamane had to settle for nominal damages. What the nominal damages would do for Mzamane is to indicate that it was her legal right to sue Winfrey and that Winfrey’s behaviours towards her were inappropriate.

11-15            Paine v. Cason No. 10–1487 (2012)

If the area where the police officer dropped Christina Eilman was known to be unsafe, the police officer should have known about it. Generally, police officers have the duty of keeping all people safe, and they must know the areas known to be notoriously unsafe. Away from this, the police could also see that Eilman was a white girl. There was no way she would come from a place dominated by blacks. Moreover, it would be unsafe for an improperly dressed girl to be dropped in an unsafe neighbourhood. Even if the police officer did not know about the girl’s mental health condition or her family background, the situations above prove that the act was wrong. Therefore, the court must have ruled that the police officer was guilty of negligence claims. With the evidence of injury caused by Eilman (proof of rape), the court could have added punitive damages to the suit. The punitive damages in this situation would be used to punish the police officer for negligent conduct and to set an example for other police officers to prevent them from committing similar acts.

11-16            Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (2014)

  If the plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Rye) provided evidence of the claimed physical injury to Mrs. Rye, and showed its association with that lack of RhoGAm injection, then the court must have ruled in their favor. With all this evidence in place, the court would fully approve the medical malpractice allegations against the defendant. The court had already received enough proof that Mrs. Rye got Rh-sensitized for lacking the injection and that this caused her to have Rh-positive blood. Moreover, the defendant already accepted the family planning program's potential future disruption. The court would only need evidence of the harm this condition caused on the mother or her unborn baby or both and the implicated medical expenses. The court could not have issued punitive damages if no such evidence was found. The defendant must have paid nominal damages to show acknowledgment of the fact that the possible disruption of future family planning caused emotional distress to Mrs. Rye.

11-17            Yonaty v. Mincolla, WL 1948006 (2012)

It is apparent that Jean Mincolla spread the gay rumour to Mark Yonaty’s family and close friends to break Yonaty’s relationship with his girlfriend. This already shows that Mincolla’s behaviour is intentional and is expected to cause (most probably) emotional pain. Although no monetary losses or physical injuries would result from Mincolla’s act, Yonaty had the legal right to declare the defendant’s behaviour offensive, embarrassing, and capable of defamation. Besides, Mincolla’s argument that gay or bisexual labels are not shameful is untrue because if it were so, the girlfriend would have no reason to leave Yonaty. The court should have approved nominal damages sought by Yonaty to show its approval of Yonaty’s right to seek legal pursuit for Mincolla’s behaviour and warn individuals of using such labels to defame others.

11-18            Hastings v. Sauve 2012 NY Slip Op 02535 (2012)

The liability theory applied to lawsuits based on injuries resulting from domestic animals in New York requires that a plaintiff demonstrate the animal owner’s awareness of its ability to behave dangerously (Kubasek, 2016). In this case, however, Hastings had no way of explaining Sauve’s awareness of the cow’s dangerous act tendencies. The most probable response from the court would be to drop the case. Although Hastings crashed her car into Sauve’s cow, and there are possibilities of physical injuries and damages to her car, the court lacks the power to act on her case because of the strict lawsuit rules applied in New York.

11-19            Peshlakai v. Ruiz, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (d.n.m. 2014)

I think that the court must have accepted the suit and added the applicable damages. What I mean here is that both James Ruiz, Gilbert Mendoze and the Applebee Neighbourhood Grill operator were directly or indirectly responsible for the injuries and deaths of the plaintiffs’ families. Hughes et al. (2012) argued that the World Health Organisation has identified that the drinking settings contribute significantly to the harms related to alcohol consumption. They also stated that bars and nightclubs are better placed to control intoxication and avoid the dangerous consequences of the same. In these environments, intoxication or heavy alcohol drinking is caused by, among other factors, the staff practice and the features of the clientele the venue target. Similarly, Buvik (2013) explained that there are times when bartenders fail to evaluate the intoxication level of the customers. The author linked such incidences to a lack of responsible service at the venue, the acceptance of intoxication in the drinking culture, or a breach of the Alcohol Act. In such settings, bartenders tend to continue serving customers as long as they are pleasant and non-confrontational. Moreover, Galbicsek (2020) explained that regardless of the amount of alcohol a person consumes, drinking and driving are not legal. In other words, it is not necessary for a driver to show signs of intoxication to be considered dangerous.

11-20            2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Restis v. Am. Coalition against Nuclear Iran, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139402 (s.d.n.y. 2014)

Given that the plaintiff mentioned tortuous interference with his business, the court would most likely rule in his favour if he provided evidence that the Uani corporation owner’s actions were purely driven by malice. Harms to a business relationship have potential links to monetary losses. This also implies that the Restis sued the defendant to get compensation. As it is, the court must see the evidence of the allegations before deciding on the deserving compensatory amount (Kubasek, 2016). Restis must show the court the extent to which the “name-and-shame campaign” affected his business and the monetary losses resulting from the damaged relationship between his shipping company and business partners.