Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Essay Example

Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 Paper Sports and the Law: Case Presentation N. E. central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N. E. 2d 506, ct. C. P. Cuyahoga cty. OH 1961 1. Facts of the Case The plaintiff in this case is Central NY Basketball, Inc. , who owns the Syracuse Nationals of the National Basketball league (NBA). There are two defendants: Richard Barnett, a #1 draft choice of the plaintiff in 1959, and Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. , who owns the Cleveland Pipers of the American Basketball league (ABL). The defendant, Barnett, is currently under contract with the plaintiff. 2. Procedure This case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, which would be considered to be on the trial court level. 3. Law in Question The law in question would be breach of contract by the defendants. 4. What is the issue? The defendant, Richard Barnett, played for the plaintiff in both the year he was drafted 1959 and the following season in 1960 under a signed and executed Uniform Player Contract of the National Basketball Association. This contract also included an option for the plaintiff to renew said contract for an additional year. The breach of contract occurred when the defendant, Barnett, refused to play with and for the plaintiff during the 1961-62 season. Barnett made and entered into an American Basketball League with the defendant, Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. , to render his services for the 1961-62 season. The plaintiff claims that it cannot be properly compensated for damages in an action at law for the loss of Barnetts services and is petitioning for Barnett to not be allowed to play for the defendant, Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. 5. Holding We will write a custom essay sample on Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 N.E.2d 506, Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the injunction request for the 1961-62 season was granted and after that season would be dissolved. 6. Courts Reasoning The courts reasoning for their decision was that there was no adequate and complete remedy at law and the injury to the plaintiff is irreparable. 7. My opinion I completely agree with the decision made by the court to refuse the defendant, Barnett, from playing for the co-defendant Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. In the case Cleveland Basketball Club, Inc. ies to Justify entering into a contract with Barnett because he does not possess great skill but they do still acknowledge that he is under contract with the plaintiff. So no matter the skill level he is still under contract, which means that he cannot enter into another one until the current one is over. Eventually after the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff both teams did however come to an agreement where Barnett was allowed to play for the Cleveland Pipers of the ABL. Central NY Basketball, Inc. v. Barnett (181 2d 506, Ct. C. P. Cuyahoga cty. OH 1961 By demarchi411

Cloning Essays - Cloning, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Biotechnology

Cloning Essays - Cloning, Molecular Biology, Genetics, Biotechnology Cloning Shortly after the announcement that British scientists had successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly, cloning humans has recently become a possibility that seems much more feasible in today's society. The word clone has been applied to cells as well as to organisms, so that a group of cells stemming from a single cell is also called a clone. Usually the members of a clone are identical in their inherited characteristics that is, in their genes except for any differences caused by mutation. Identical twins, for example, who originate by the division of a single fertilized egg, are members of a clone; whereas nonidentical twins, who derive from two separate fertilized eggs, are not clones. (Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia). There are two known ways that we can clone humans. The first way involves splitting an embryo into several halves and creating many new individuals from that embryo. The second method of cloning a human involves taking cells from an already existing human being and cloni ng them, in turn creating other individuals that are identical to that particular person. With these two methods at our desposal, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: Should we do this, and Can we? There is no doubt that many problems involving the technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will be virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is one that we should accept as a possible reality for the future. Cloning humans is an idea that has always been thought of as something that could be found in science fiction novels, but never as a concept that society could actually experience. Today's technological speed has brought us to the piont to where almost anything is possible. Sarah B. Tegen, '97 MIT Biology Undergraduate President states, I think the cloning of an entire mammal has shown me exactly how fast biology is moving ahead, I had no idea we were so close to this kind of accomplishment. Based on the current science , though, most of these dreams and fears are premature, say some MIT biologists. Many biologist claim that true human cloning is something still far in the future. This raises ethical questions now as towhether or not human cloning should even be attempted. (usnews.com/usnews/issue/). There are many problems with cloning humans. One method of human cloning is splitting embryos. The main issue as to whether or not human cloning is possible through the splitting of embryos began in 1993 when experimentation was done at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington D.C. There Dr. Jerry Hall experimented with the possibility of human cloning and began this moral and ethical debate. There it was concluded that cloning is not something that can be done as of now, but it is quite a possibility for the future. These scientists experimented eagerly in aims of learning how to clone humans. Ruth Macklin of U.S. News & World Report writes, Hall and other scientists split single humans embryos into identical copies, a technology that opens a Pandora's box of ethical questions and has sparked a storm of controversy around the world (usnews.com/usnews/issue/). They attempted to create seventeen human embryos in a laboratory dish and when it had grown enough, separate d them into forty-eight individual cells. Two of the separated cells survived for a few days in the lab developed into new human embryos smaller than the head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells each. (usnews.com/usnews/issue/) Although we cannot clone a human yet, this experiment occurred almost two years ago and triggered almost an ethical emergency. Evidence from these experiments received strange reactions from the public. Ruth Macklin states, Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an unthinking disgusta sort of yuk factor. And that makes it hard for even trained scientists and ethicists to see the matter clearly. While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm, either. (usnews.com/usnews/issue/). Theologians contend that to