1. In the summer of 2017, the New York Public Theater sponsored a production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park. By itself, there is nothing unusual about this event. In fact, the 2017 season of the Central Park Summer Shakespeare Festival marked the 55th anniversary of the program. However, this summer’s program offered a bit of a twist. In the production, the character of Julius Caesar was clearly modeled after President Donald Trump. At first, this might not have been a problem, except for the fact that in this production, the character of Caesar is assassinated in a particularly bloody fashion. The production sparked instant controversy between supporters of the president, who saw it as just one more example of the left’s animosity toward the president, and opponents of the president, who saw it simply as an expression of artistic creativity. What is most interesting for our purposes here is the fact that in reaction to the controversy, several Page 25corporate sponsors, including Delta Airlines and Bank of America, withdrew all or part of their support for the Public Theater’s Free Shakespeare in the Park program. Using our discussion of corporate ethical responsibility, evaluate this move by Delta and Bank of America, and determine whether the decision is in line with or opposed to corporate responsibility. One word of limitation—in the spirit of avoiding nonjudgmentalism, only two answers are acceptable: “yes” or “no.” Of course, you must also explain the reasons behind your yes or no answer. [See: Michael Cooper, “In ‘Julius Caesar,’ an Assassination Echoes Across the Centuries,” The New York Times, June 13, 2017, pp. A-1, A-23; and Michael Paulson and Sopan Deb, “Trump Supporters Drive Effort to Bury the Public Theater,” The New York Times, June 13, 2017, p. A-23.]
4. Barbara Rome entered Flower Memorial Hospital to undergo a series of X-rays. When she was ready for the X-rays, she was assisted by a student radiological intern. The intern placed Rome on the X-ray table and strapped her onto the table correctly; however, the intern did not properly fasten the footboard, which was located at the foot of the table. As a result of this error, Rome fell and was hurt when the table was raised. As a consequence, Rome brought a lawsuit against Flower Memorial Hospital, alleging that the ordinary negligence of the intern had caused her injury. In contrast, the hospital argued that the lawsuit involved a medical claim, as defined under the state’s medical malpractice statute. Whether a case involves ordinary negligence or a medical claim would determine whether the state’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence or the state’s one-year statute of limitations for medical claims would apply. This case clearly involves a difference of opinion on the interpretation of a statute. What sources might the court consider when interpreting the statute in question? [See: Rome v. Flower Memorial Hospital, 635 N.E.2d 1239 (OH).]
6. Eight limited partners filed a lawsuit in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the general partners in 10 different limited partnerships had engaged in an extensive pattern of self-dealing that had involved converting partnership property for their own personal use. Also named in the lawsuit was the accounting firm of Donald J. Goldstein, CPA, a resident of Florida, and Goldstein, Lewis, and Company, a professional corporation located in Florida. The plaintiffs claimed that the accountant and the accounting firm had known of the general partners’ misconduct and were therefore liable to the plaintiff for that malpractice. The accountant and the accounting firm decided to end the Page 91suit as quickly as possible. Consequently, they filed a motion for dismissal. The motion stated that the courts of Ohio lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they were from Florida. They further stated that they did not solicit business in Ohio, maintained no place of business in Ohio, had no license to act as accountants in Ohio, owned no property in Ohio, provided all services from Florida, and filed no documents with the state of Ohio. Thus, they concluded that they fell outside the power of Ohio’s long-arm statute. Conversely, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants transacted business in the state of Ohio on a continuing and ongoing basis by regularly submitting financial statements to the limited partners in Ohio and by being actively involved in the decisions of the general partnership. Did the activities of the accountant and the accounting firm place them under the jurisdiction of the Ohio court, according to the state “long-arm” statute? Explain. [See: Goldstein v. Christiansen, 638 N.E.2d 541 (OH).]
Read each case and answer questions
