8. Paul Stone sued his employer for assault and battery due to the of several of his female co-workers. While gathered around the coffee machine each morning, they would whistle at him, make lewd comments, and touch and pinch him. When the case was dismissed from the state circuit court, Stone appealed. The intermediate court of appeals sustained the result in the lower court, and Stone appealed to the state supreme court. When the state supreme court also sustained, Stone sought to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Are there any federal issues in this case that would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take jurisdiction? What might prevent the nation's highest court from so doing?

Question

8. Paul Stone sued his employer for assault and battery due to the of several of his female co-workers. While gathered around the coffee machine each morning, they would whistle at him, make lewd comments, and touch and pinch him. When the case was dismissed from the state circuit court, Stone appealed. The intermediate court of appeals sustained the result in the lower court, and Stone appealed to the state supreme court. When the state supreme court also sustained, Stone sought to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Are there any federal issues in this case that would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take jurisdiction? What might prevent the nation's highest court from so doing?

Answer 1

The federal issue that could potentially allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take jurisdiction in this case is whether the actions of Paul Stone's female co-workers constituted a violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace harassment based on sex.Factors that might prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from taking jurisdiction include:1. Lack of a substantial federal question: If the federal issue raised is not significant enough or is not clearly defined, the Supreme Court may decline to hear the case.2. Exhaustion of state remedies: If Paul Stone has not exhausted all available state remedies or if there are no unresolved state law issues, the Supreme Court may not intervene.3. Discretionary review: The U.S. Supreme Court has discretion in choosing which cases to hear, and they may choose not to hear this case if they believe it does not warrant their attention or if there are other pressing matters before the Court.4. Lack of clear legal precedent: If there is no clear legal precedent or conflicting interpretations of the law, the Supreme Court may hesitate to take the case.5. Mootness: If the issue is no longer live or if there is no actual controversy between the parties, the Supreme Court may decline to hear the case.6. Procedural issues: If there are procedural defects in the case, such as failure to properly preserve issues for appeal or failure to follow proper appellate procedures, the Supreme Court may not take jurisdiction.Ultimately, whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take jurisdiction in this case would depend on the specific circumstances and legal arguments presented.

Question

Answer

Answer