Legal and Ethical Scenarios: University Law Case Study Analysis

This assignment presents a case study analyzing legal and ethical scenarios within the framework of South Carolina law. The first scenario examines divorce proceedings, outlining the required factors for divorce, the jurisdiction of family courts, and the implications of separate support and maintenance. It also explores food poisoning, detailing prohibited activities under South Carolina legislation and available remedies. Furthermore, it defines manslaughter, its distinction from murder, and court jurisdiction. The second scenario focuses on commercial speech, defining it as speech with a profit motive and discussing the Supreme Court's stance on protected commercial speech and the Central Hudson test. It also addresses trademark regulations, the prohibition of indecent or obscene marks, and the limitations on commercial speech to promote legitimate state interests, even in cases involving offensive labels on market toys.

Running Head : Legal and ethical scenarios
LEGAL AND ETHICAL SCENARIOS
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Legal and ethical scenarios
Scenario: 1
In Divorce proceedings of South Carolina of United States, there are five factors which
are required to be satisfied that is physical cruelty, adultery, habitual drunkenness, abandonment
which is dependent on both parties in the suit who are living separately for the maximum period
of one year. The mental exploitation or cruel is not the valid ground of divorce in South
Carolina. The divorce suit is filed in a particular court which is characterized as Family Courts
(Schweizer, 2018). The Jury of the Family Court has the authority to entertain the cases of
separation, divorce, custody of the child, and division of marital property which includes
pensions and retirement. A separate suit is lodged for divorce action by one of the spouse
requesting a divorce from another only if the requirements for the divorce are established and
divorce proceeding also covers separate support and maintenance.
In South Carolina of the United States, Food poisoning can be designated as Food which
is deliberately or unintentionally contaminated by chemical, microbiological or physical
vulnerabilities. The following activities are prohibited under the code of legislation of South
Carolina which includes manufacturing and selling of adulterated food or misbranding of food
(Mbaé, Mlindassé, Mihidjaé, & Seyler, 2016). It also includes receiving in commerce of any
adulterated or contaminated food for the price. The remedies available to the parties affected by
the contamination of food can apply for an injunction to the circuit court and that court has
jurisdiction to hear the case and allow provisional or permanent injunction prohibiting the person
who infringes the provision relating to adulteration of food.

2Legal and ethical scenarios
Manslaughter, as designated in South Carolina, is the comparatively lesser crime of
murder but is still considered a serious offence. The homicide law of South Carolina defines
manslaughter as the killing of one person without any malicious intent which is the essential
requirement in case of murder. Thus the crime of manslaughter implies the killing of one person
by another in the heat of desire after witnessing a reasonable provocation. A child alleged with
manslaughter maybe entertain in Circuit court. Article V of the Constitution of South Carolina
laid down that no court which is inferior to Circuit courts can be participated with the jurisdiction
to try the offence of manslaughter (Blume & Vann, 2016). The general session court handles
with the felony crimes of the maximum sentence is the death penalty.
According to unannotated code of laws in South Carolina, the person is said to commit a
battery if the person illegally injures another person which cause grave bodily injury to another
individual or likely to cause death or severe bodily injury (Ou et al, 2017). The person who
commits the offence of the battery may be sentenced for more than twenty years. The circuit
court has jurisdiction to entertain offence of battery if the procedures drawn in the legislation is
followed
Scenario 2
The commercial speech can be defined as the speech on a business with the intention of
earning profit. In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld that commercial speech id the
speech that suggests business transactions. In order to consider commercial speech as protected
speech which is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, there is a mandate that
speech must concentrate oh lawful conduct and it must not mislead the public. There are nine

3Legal and ethical scenarios
categories of commercial speech which are unprotected includes perjury, fighting words,
obscenity, blackmail, true threats, incitement to imminent unlawful conduct, defamation,
pornography of child (Rothman, 2015). The test to determine whether the commercial speech is
constitutional is termed as Central Hudson test which comprises of firstly the speech should
concentrate on a lawful activity; secondly, the speech should be substantial in regulating the
government interest, the regulation should advance the interest of the government. In the similar
case of Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., there is the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court
which held that the federal prohibition on starting intoxicating content on labels of beer is
violating the Coor’s First Amendment on rights of commercial speech. This is one of the
landmark cases which enhance the first amendment safeguards for commercial speech.
According to Trademark Regulation and Commercial speech doctrine of the United States, there
is legislative rules and regulation which prohibit any marks or labels that constitute indecent or
obscene. Such restriction imposed on the trademark act stands contrary to the first amendment of
the constitution of the United States. The label on any object for commercial profit is not
permitted that invites risk to the consumer or to public. Displaying label can also be disapproved
if it is proved to be immoral, indecent or scandalous.
The offensive label is one which comprises of the indecent, scandalous or obscene mark
which is prohibited by the government for the public interest. This prohibition is applicable for
all object whether it is on beer or market toys (Adler, 2016). The restriction on commercial
speech is to promote the legitimate interest of the state. Thus even if the obscene label is
displayed on market toys, it is not allowed under Trademark laws of the United States which
forbids the company from using offensive logos that can affect the sentiment or is detrimental for

4Legal and ethical scenarios
the citizens. Though the Company is free to exercise freedom of work but is subject to
restrictions.
References
Adler, J. H. (2016). Compelled Commercial Speech and the Consumer Right to Know. Ariz. L.
Rev., 58, 421.
Blume, J. H., & Vann, L. S. (2016). Forty years of death: The past, present, and future of the
death penalty in South Carolina (still arbitrary after all these years). Duke J. Const. L. &
Pub. Pol'y, 11, 183.
Mbaé, S. B. A., Mlindassé, M., Mihidjaé, S., & Seyler, T. (2016). Food-poisoning outbreak and
fatality following ingestion of sea turtle meat in the rural community of Ndrondroni,
Mohéli Island, Comoros, December 2012. Toxicon, 120, 38-41.
Ou, X., Yang, C., Xiong, X., Zheng, F., Pan, Q., Jin, C., ... & Huang, K. (2017). A new rGO‐
overcoated Sb2Se3 nanorods anode for Na+ battery: in Situ X‐ray diffraction study on a
live sodiation/desodiation process. Advanced Functional Materials, 27(13), 1606242.
Rothman, J. E. (2015). Commercial Speech, Commercial Use, and the Intellectual Property
Quagmire. Va. L. Rev., 101, 1929.
Schweizer, V. (2018). Divorce Rate in the US: Geographic variation, 2017. Montana, 12, 3-1.

5Legal and ethical scenarios

6Legal and ethical scenarios