Select an assigned client in clinical or a child in your community. Discuss your findings and include the following aspects of the child’s development in a one page written summary. Support your findings with references from your text, clinical manual and a nursing journal article using APA style (6th Ed.). Do not include names of the children or parent or any of their identification information. Maintain the child and parents confidentiality. In your paper discuss the following: Review of the child’s growth and development including physical, cognitive, developmental milestone achievements. Identify nutritional needs attainment of proper nutrition. Discuss parent child interaction, communication and discipline; including play and recreational activities. 7 Identify and discuss any cultural implications on this child’s development. 7 Recognize child safety strategies use in the child environment or the lack thereof. Please pay attention to your presentation, grammar and writing. Submit your paper to your clinical faculty by the due date. This is a graded course requirement.
The paper gives a concise examination and survey of a case in which the administration of the United States prompted the U.S. Incomparable Court. This is the protection of the case request 384 U.S. rivalry 270 introduced by the U.S. government against VON Grocery Co. (Von) in 1966 in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California No. 303. Span was March 22, 1966 and the conveyance of a decision was the May 31, 1966. It was agreeable to the respondent. This just reminded interest, government controllers were disregarding circumstances that happen inside its ward. It was regardless of his insight into the changing improvements in market structures that controlled procedures. Government controllers neglected to change to a casual state of mind contrasted with past administrative methodology essential responded to the dangers and chances of his time. Thus, this prompted the counteractive action of unreasonable exchange practices or transfer of comparable financial exercises of little scale business. Catchphrases: VON'S GROCERY CO, 384 U.S. 270, Shopping Bag Food Stores and 7 of the Clayton Act. Question 2: Describe the arrangement of the US Antirust Law conjured to pass judgment on the nearness of against focused conduct or capability of for moving the business toward that path. The 1960 merger of Von Grocery Company with contender Shopping Bag Food Stores (Shopping Bag) whose areas are in Los Angeles, California abused Section 7 of the Clayton Act (n. P Thomson Reuter). Its revision in 1950 controls the sensible end through the denial of mergers and acquisitions, which diminished rivalry. Indeed, even after another revision in 1980, remains the principle reference point for antitrust law mergers that debilitated the United States (Fox and Fox). Question 3: Describe the reason for the decision and activity that relate to all OR a portion of the accompanying components: The degree and pattern in rivalry and expected later on: Industry Structure and pattern and projection for the future [based on the past, mostly]; CR4, CR8 and HHI, extraordinarily in instances of mergers. The case of the United States had different adjustments as help for their contentions. They were the 1950 alteration to Section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver and Congress looked to protect rivalry for private companies. Was additionally proposed to enable organizations to center. The court was the operator that was against extensive organizations that utilization focuses in business sectors with expanding centralization of business. He prevailing with regards to stripping after United States v. Philadelphia National. . Bank, 374 U.S. 321 Celler-Kefauver 362 Anti-Merger Act 1950 as revised gives important data: "That no organization occupied with business … will procure all or part of the advantages of another organization additionally occupied with trade, where in any line of business in any piece of the nation, the impact of such obtaining might be significantly to reduce rivalry or have a tendency to make a restraining infrastructure. " Question 4: Describe the "direct" being referred to that has been considered "anticompetitive:"Determine if the respondent had utilized an anticompetitive Price Strategy and clarify how. In like manner, portray any Non-value Strategies the litigant had utilized and depict how. In contributing 233 F. Supp. 976 Richard A. Posner was guide for the United States. Your tips help were Attorney General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, James J. Coyle and John F. Hughes. The barrier lawyer was William W. Alsup. Your tips help Warren M. Christopher and were William W. Vaughn. As an invested individual, the National Association of Retail Grocers of the United States Attorney Bison was Henry J., Jr., as amicus curiae, asking affirmance. MR. Equity BLACK was the judge for the situation and give judgment. The date of the first application was March 25, 1960. Walk 28, 1960, the District Court did not concede the movement of the Government for a controlling request against Von Grocery Company. The last needed to secure substantial capital around the Shopping Bag Food Stores, and the decision was that not abuse the terms of interest. It was an indirect access method for perceiving the merger and indicating partiality to the charged preceding last judgment. The principle contention of the safeguard was that an organization was shielding the other from the condition of fall. They converged to ensure a more grounded contender. 374 U.S. 321, 362 was the case that forbidding such mergers. There were bank advances may have approached and declaring financial insolvency as a monetary inclusion. The organization accomplished this when it was going to fall. He figured out how to regroup with the assistance of government offices and private monetary advisors. Question 5: Describe the impact of the respondent's "direct" on different firms (or the principle match) in the business. Von was the third biggest basic supply advertise in the retail zone Los Angeles on deals while the shopping pack of sustenance was number six of every 1958. Their 1960 joint deals rose 7.5% a yearly yield of more than two million. Your Los Angeles advertise appeared to be too little piece of their market to the legislature to battle. Be that as it may, if the best ten organizations had twofold consolidated, their aggregate piece of the pie could have been about 33% of the retail market of Los Angeles. To be reasonable for these stores, which had started as the active neighborhood store numerous Americans of his age knew. Ten of the past twelve years to the merger, the quantity of stores has expanded to somewhat more than twice their number. The other positive numbers incorporate expanded deals and piece of the overall industry. Its merger situated the number two store chains in Los Angeles. In the interim, the revelation of individual proprietors tennis shops in Los Angeles dropped by almost two-fifths. In 1963, the numbers kept on declining. The administration witnesses did not have an intensive investigation of the raw numbers that the guard previously possessed. For instance, from 1949 until 1958, nine of the best 20 contenders chains came into ownership of 126 stores littler opponents. An imperative protection witness gave subtle elements of past acquisitions and mergers from 1954 to 1961. Clearly they were in the best 10 stores in Los Angeles. You should seriously think about this as a standard individual and biased lawful activity. They ought to likewise have ground The nine contenders target adversaries for littler gatherings to lawful activity. Nonetheless, the association of the two forces of money related market was a risk to government control in the zone of â€‹â€‹Los Angeles. The administration revealed information in its answer, the Federal Trade Commission arranged. Question 6: Describe the underlying legitimate move made against or for the respondent. The underlying legitimate move made against the respondent is that the US government blamed Von's Grocery Company for abusing Section 7 of the Clayton Act since it was an endeavoring to make a restraining infrastructure. The organization claimed and the District Court governed to support its. Likewise, notice that the legislature made allegations against the organization since it needed to buy a littler rival in the retail basic need advertise that was called Shopping Bag Food Stores. Question 7: Describe any resulting legitimate activity for the situation, (for example, the Supreme Court), assuming any. When the case was settled there was no resulting move made. The choice looking into the issue was revoked by the District Court and it was workable for Von's Grocery Company to converge with, and in this way retain, Shopping Bag Food Stores. Question 8: Carefully depict how the model of Structure-Conduct-Performance has been connected for the situation under thought. [The weight for this inquiry is 40% of the grade.] The historical backdrop of the battle against mergers in the United States started in 1890. Around then, Congress passed the Sherman Act to counteract imposing business models. Doubt of Americans back to the establishing of the nation. Tragically, did not secure the littler organizations agent bigger monopolistic weights. In 1897, the Court decided that the U.S. government against Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U.S. 290, 323. In [384 U.S. 270, 275], the Sherman Act did not secure the little specialist. Congressional endorsement in 1914, 7 of the Clayton Act permitted the merger of partnerships through the buy of offers of its rivals. By differentiation, representatives discover an escape clause and purchased his rivals resources. A hit to the battle against the Clayton Act gadget accompanied the support of Judge Brandeis, Taft boss equity and judges Holmes and Stone in 1926. Accordingly, there was a decrease in the quantity of expansive organizations. The activity was in 1950 Congress embraced the Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger Act. Delegate Celler and Senator Kefauver primary reference was 384 U.S. legislators 270, 276 for the period 1940-1947. They utilized the Brown Shoe Co. v United States, 370 U.S. 294, 315 to contend their focuses. They and different individuals from Congress had similar concerns. Interestingly, 7 of the Clayton Act had stamps in their tidal pond and expanding its inclusion utilizing 384 U.S. 270, 277. Clearing This included mergers among contenders and stop all occurrences of mergers. The U.S. v National Philadelphia. Keeping money, prompted Amendment 7 to drop the counter aggressive inclinations. 384 U.S. 270, 279 is another instance of reference that permitted the section of the Celler-Kefauver Act. In United States v. El Paso Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 662 litigants El Paso Gas Co. were told of antitrust charges and declined to defer divestment from the earliest starting point. Besides, these two other comparative instances of United States v. du Pont and Co., 366 U.S. 316; United States v. Alcoa, 377 U.S. 271, 281 are pre-preliminary interest 384 U.S. 270, 303 which was exposed to investigation. Choices of grammatical errors with the figures exhibited in court said the legislature ran an introduction to meet with any individual or body characteristics. The administration controller requires steady attention to the effect of authoritative improvements and industry patterns and progressing. There>GET ANSWER