Marshall electrical contracting

Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. Medrano attended an electrician apprenticeship night class at a community college in Sedalia, Missouri. MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. Attendance at the course required Medrano to drive 70 miles roundtrip. One night, when Medrano was driving home from the class, a drunk driver crossed the centerline of U.S. Highway 65 and collided head-on with Medrano’s automobile. Medrano died in the accident. His wife and two children filed a workers’ compensation claim for death benefits against MEC. Are Medrano’s actions at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling his heirs to workers’ compensation benefits? Medrano v. Marshall Electrical Contracting Inc., 173 S.W.3d 333, 2005 Mo. App. Lexis 1088 (Court of Appeals of Missouri, 2005)Ch 31 EOC Writing Assignment Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. Medrano attended an electrician apprenticeship night class at a community college in Sedalia, Missouri. MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. Attendance at the course required Medrano to drive 70 miles roundtrip. One night, when Medrano was driving home from the class, a drunk driver crossed the centerline of U.S. Highway 65 and collided head-on with Medrano’s automobile. Medrano died in the accident. His wife and two children filed a workers’ compensation claim for death benefits against MEC. Are Medrano’s actions at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling his heirs to workers’ compensation benefits? Medrano v. Marshall Electrical Contracting Inc., 173 S.W.3d 333, 2005 Mo. App. Lexis 1088 (Court of Appeals of Missouri, 2005) Written work must follow this format: • Must be in Legal Memo Format; • Times Roman 12 point font; • 1 - inch margins; Complete sentences; • Answer the question completely; • Grades are based on CONTENT. Memorandum To: Professor Jones From: Bill Jones RE: Dixon and Hinton v. United States Date: March 1, 2015 Question Presented What crimes have Dixon and Hinton committed? Short Answer Bribery Statement of Facts The city of Peoria received federal block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The purpose for the grants was the rehabilitation of residential structures, and community development. The city designated a community based corporation (UNI) to be in charge of administering these grants. UNI solicited bids from contractors to perform the work on those homes that qualified for the program. After soliciting bids it was UNI who awarded the contracts to the winning bidder. Arthur Dixson and James Lee Hinton worked for UNI. Dixon and Hinton had a salary paid for by the Federal government. The entire cost of the rehabilitation program was paid for by the Federal government Ora Logsdon was a contractor that received contract from UNI. Gerald Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. Bribery prohibits any “public official” from directly or indirectly asking, demanding, soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act. Discussion Ora Logsdon was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. He testified that received ten contracts as part of a deal with Dixson and Hinton. Logsdon said the deal was Dixson and Hinton would award the contracts to him if he paid them 10 percent of the total amount of the contract. Gerard Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. Lilly testified Dixon told him that if he paid Dixon 10% of the contract price he would receive the contract. Lilly also testified that Dixon and Hinson helped him prepare bids, and told Lilly that submitting the bids was a formality.