AccountingQueen

(3)

$16/per page/Negotiable

About AccountingQueen

Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD

Expertise:
Accounting,Algebra See all
Accounting,Algebra,Applied Sciences,Architecture and Design,Art & Design,Biology,Business & Finance,Calculus,Chemistry,Communications,Computer Science,Economics,Engineering,English,Environmental science,Essay writing,Film,Foreign Languages,Geography,Geology,Geometry,Health & Medical,History,HR Management,Information Systems,Law,Literature,Management,Marketing,Math,Numerical analysis,Philosophy,Physics,Precalculus,Political Science,Psychology,Programming,Science,Social Science,Statistics Hide all
Teaching Since: Jul 2017
Last Sign in: 362 Weeks Ago, 1 Day Ago
Questions Answered: 5502
Tutorials Posted: 5501

Education

  • MBA.Graduate Psychology,PHD in HRM
    Strayer,Phoniex,
    Feb-1999 - Mar-2006

  • MBA.Graduate Psychology,PHD in HRM
    Strayer,Phoniex,University of California
    Feb-1999 - Mar-2006

Experience

  • PR Manager
    LSGH LLC
    Apr-2003 - Apr-2007

Category > Law Posted 13 Sep 2017 My Price 10.00

injunction, reasoning

In 1962 the Atlantic Cement Company began operating a cement plant outside of Albany, New York. The Company employed over 300 local residents and by 1970 had invested $45 million in the plant. The plant emitted large amounts of pollution, however, as well as causing constant vibrations and loud noise. Local residents filed suit against the Company, claiming that the loud noise and the vibrations were harming their health and property. The suit asked that the court issue an injunction that would close down the plant until the pollution and vibrations could be eliminated. The Company was already using the best available technology, which meant that the suit was asking that the plant be closed down indefinitely. The court refused to issue the injunction, reasoning that the costs of closing the plant outweighed the benefits to be gained by the residents. Instead of closing the plant, the court ruled that the cement company should pay residents a one—time fee to compensate them for ongoing harms. This fee was calculated to be a fair market price for what the residents would receive if they were inclined and able to rent their property. Was the decision of the court in this case fair? If so, why? If not, why not? 
This text was automatically generated from the attachment. Please refer to the attachment to view this question. 
This question was created from 271981289-Ethics-Cases2011 https://www.coursehero.com/file/13045539/271981289-Ethics-Cases2011/?focusQaId=10704534

 

Attachments:

Answers

(3)
Status NEW Posted 13 Sep 2017 04:09 PM My Price 10.00

Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- us-----------ing----------- ou-----------r w-----------ebs-----------ite----------- an-----------d a-----------cqu-----------isi-----------tio-----------n o-----------f m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l

Not Rated(0)