Case Background. The original psychiatric hospital opened up in 1828 as the state’s primary care-giving facility for the mentally ill (VA DBHDS, n.d.). The hospital’s first director was a strong believer in “moral medicine,” which emphasized that even the most severely ill patients could be rehabilitated through a comfortable and peaceful environment. The first campus featured beautiful neo-classical architecture and an abundance of green spaces. Towards the end of the 19th century, the facility started to become overcrowded and more forceful techniques of patient control were used. Straitjackets, isolation, frontal lobotomies, and even sterilization were practiced by hospital staff well until the 1970’s. By 1950, a new site was opened adjacent to the current hospital’s site and the old campus was vacant by the 1970’s. The original site was used as a medium security men’s prison and then abandoned. The original site’s downtown location is ideal for developers, and there are already plans to redevelop and restore the campus into condominiums. The hospital also has a history of working with higher education institutions. Since 1978, the University of Virginia has associated itself with the hospital by offering joint faculty appointments and training experiences for students. The idea for a new hospital was first brought up in 2005 in a discussion between the city and the state (Xxxxxx, 2009). This state was particularly interested in building a new hospital since the current, 24 building campus was aging and becoming inefficient to operate. The campus was built to handle a peak population of 3,300 in 1963, but by 2005 patient enrollment had dropped to around 245. New models of care-giving that centered on the individual patient were harder to implement on a sprawling campus that was built to 20th century care-giving standards. In 2008, the general assembly agreed to contribute $110 million towards the construction of a new mental hospital. The state also made a deal with the town where the town contributes $15 million and the deed to 66 acres of open land next to the current hospital site. In exchange, the hospital agreed to give the town the old hospital’s 250 acre site, which was prime commercial real estate, after construction of the new facility was completed. Unlike the previous two sites that offered a campus-like atmosphere with multiple buildings, this new facility is contained within one building. The new hospital departed from the old model of care- giving by placi...
Case Background. Bob is a citizen and resident of an EU country (country A). Bob is married with several children of various ages, has a car, some savings from his previous 10 years of work in his chosen profession, and owns the furnishings in the apartment where he currently resides. Bob has decided to avail himself of the possibilities afforded by the EU’s core policy of providing for the free movement of goods, services and people, and has therefore recently accepted a job offer to work in another EU country (country B). He now has to move himself, his family, and his possessions from country A to country B to take up his new job. In order for Bob to establish himself in country B, he has to fulfill a number of obligations to the state, the first of which is to declare his presence in country B, i.e., to register himself, and his family. As he is the head of household and he is the person taking up a new job, the establishment of his wife and family in country B are linked with his own establishment. Bob has a number of practical steps to take, including traveling to country B, finding a place to live, taking care of the formalities with the local administration, and physically moving his family and possessions into their new home.
Case Background. The project was located in a section of the city that was annexed from the county 25 years ago. The project team had access to the as-builts the county created when the utilities were originally installed; however the as-builts were not very accurate.
Case Background. This project was the renovation of an existing manufacturing facility to be used as a data warehouse. The renovation required the demolition of on part of the facility, as well as the removal of existing material from the rest of the facility. The facility was designed to hold three large rooms of servers, and the associated electrical infrastructure required for these servers and their battery backups. This infrastructure included a gas fire suppression system in the server rooms, as using water around the electrical equipment was a last resort. Constructing this system required the placement of dozens of tanks to hold the gas on the lower level, and the piping required to distribute the gas (separate from the water-base system). The renovation was performed to meet LEED Silver requirements, and the demolition was a major component of this certification.
Case Background. The concept for a new tollway was developed approximately sixty years ago. While the tollway made it to the design phase and land was acquired for the right of way, it was never constructed (Xxxxxx, 2003). It remained on the master plan until the 1990’s when the design was re-evaluated to address environmental concerns about the proposed highway. Proponents for the highway claimed that it would improve regional traffic flow and alleviate congestion on local roads. It would also increase national security by allowing an evacuation route should Washington need to be evacuated. Opponents to the project claim that the new highway would disrupt local traffic patterns, disturb communities, and have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment (EDF, 2005). The ICC finally became a reality when the state governor xxxxxxxxx his campaign promise by conducting a formal groundbreaking in October 2006 (Xxxxxx, 2003) with construction officially beginning on November 13, 2007.
Case Background. (5) Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Green Planet 21, Inc. was organized under the laws of the State of California as a corporation and conducted business in the State of California.
Case Background. (5) Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Xxxxxx Products was organized under the laws of California as a corporation and conducted business in California.
Case Background. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action challenging the adequacy of sanitation measures, and DOC efforts to reduce the risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-
Case Background. On January 4, 2016, the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), filed a complaint against Volkswagen AG, et al. (“Volkswagen”) alleging the manufacture of vehicles with prohibited defeat devices that caused emission control systems to perform differently during normal vehicle operation than during emissions testing. As a result of the defeat devices, the vehicles emitted NOx in excess of federal vehicle emission standards. Approximately 500,000 (model year 2009 to 2015) vehicles containing 2.0 liter diesel engines and approximately 80,000 (model year 2009 to 2016) vehicles containing 3.0 liter diesel engines were affected in the country. Approximately 23,600 of the affected vehicles are registered in Illinois. The U.S. EPA has indicated that NOx emission levels from the 2.0 liter vehicles with defeat devices were 10 to 40 times higher than federal emission standards, and NOx emission levels from the 3.0 liter vehicles were up to nine times higher than federal emissions standards. (U.S. Envir. Prot. Agency, Frequent Questions about Volkswagen Violations, available at xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/vw/frequent-questions-about-volkswagen- violations)
Case Background. The football stadium is located on the campus of a large public university in northern Virginia. The university has a strong athletic program with the last few seasons of football bringing over 20,000 fans to the stadium, which is well over the stadium’s capacity of 15,000. Other special events such as homecoming, family weekend games, and graduation are held at the stadium and extra temporary seating is typically required. The university determined to expand the stadium as part of the overall campus master plan. The original stadium was constructed in 1975 with seating capacity for 5,200 fans (JMU, n.d.). The new stadium served as home for the football, track and field, lacrosse, and field hockey programs, as well has having indoor racquetball courts, classrooms, space for the ROTC program and offices for varsity athletic teams and media relations. The stadium received its first expansion in 1981 when a second set of stands were built, increasing the overall capacity of the stadium to 12,500. The stadium received a new scoreboard with video replay capability in 2004. The $62 million stadium expansion project began in December 2009 with the removal of the old concrete bleachers on the west side of the stadium and construction of new double-deck steel stands with a new press box, hospitality suites, club-level seating, and additional stands enclosing the north end of the field. The new stands would allow the stadium to accommodate 24,877 fans. This project was funded through ticket sales (including pre-orders) and a state bond package that voters passed in 2002. Construction on the west stands was completed in August 2011. The opening game for that season had a sellout crowd of 25,102 fans in attendance (ESPN, 2011). ESPN. (2011, September 10). Central Connecticut State versus Xxxxx Xxxxxxx. Retrieved from xxxx://xxxxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/ncf/boxscore?gameId=312530256 on 1 August 2014. JMU. (n.d.). The Hillside Gang. Retrieved from xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/centennialcelebration/hillside.shtml on 1 August 2014.
