User:Username441208/Choose an Article

Article Selection

Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Griswold v. Driscoll
Article Evaluation: Free speech and educational content. Massachusetts had a curriculum guide they had created on genocides. After a while, the Massachusetts Board of Education removed the denialist viewpoints, and left only the sources that affirmed the genocide. The takeaway from the court was, removing certain viewpoints did not violate the First Amendment.
Sources: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/09-2002/09-2002p-01a-2011-02-25.html

Article title: Smith v. Van Gorkom
Article Evaluation: A well written article that goes out of its way to state that this case is very important for the development of how business's are ran today. It states that it was a very important case and paved the way for many other business who decide to use the 'Business Judgement Rule'.
Sources: Smith v. Van Gorkom

Article title: Tassinari v. Key West Water Tours, L.C. (U.S. Dist. Ct. Florida, 2007)
Article Evaluation: This article touches on negligence and how training is important for certain jobs. This certain job was a guided personal watercraft tour where the plaintiff was injured due to the guide being ill equipped and not trained enough for the job. This also could be used against the company for allowing the guide to operate while being ill equipped.
Sources: https://recreation-law.com/2018/02/17/tassinari-v-key-west-water-tours-l-c-et-al-2007-u-s-dist-lexis-46490/

Article title: Hood v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2019)
Article Evaluation: This case reflects on how Hood, lost part of his thumb and lacerated his leg from a Ryobi miter saw. This case is unique and interesting because it follows the line of 'manufacturing defect' and 'consumer misuse'. There are issues for Hood such as warnings, inherent risk, and product utility. Then there are issues for Ryobi such as, product defect and failure to warn.
Sources: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/181/608/586851/