Janet (taxpayer) residing in Australia is named as the sole beneficiary of a property (1.85 hectares) with a large homestead as a result of the death of a relative on 7/10/2010. The property is not used for commercial purposes and at the date of death, the property was valued at $1.45million. Settlement took place on 21/12/2010. After moving into the homestead shortly after taking ownership, she planned to take a one-year trip which she had been planning for some time in late 2011. The taxpayer felt that the homestead was far too large for her (she is single),…
In July of 2000 Curtis Williams was indicted by a grand jury in Williamson County, Texas for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. While under indictment, Williams traveled to Louisiana from Texas on a Greyhound bus. The bus Williams was traveling on was scheduled to make a stop at the Shreveport Greyhound Bus terminal on September 12,…
Dethorne Graham, who is a diabetic, asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a store to purchase some juice to neutralize the start of an insulin reaction. When Dethorne Graham entered the store, he saw the number of people that would be ahead of him, Dethorne Graham hurried out and asked William Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Connor, a Charlotte, North Carolina police officer, became wary after seeing Dethorne Graham quickly enter and leave the store. Officer Connor followed William Berry's car, about half a mile from the store, he made an investigative stop and ordered Dethorne Graham And William Berry to wait while he found out what had happened in the store.…
Legal Citation: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965 and R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53…
Thomas Baker and others who purchased new homes from Osborne Development Corp. sued for multiple defects in the houses they purchased. When Osborne sold the homes, it paid for them to be in a new home warranty program administered by Home Buyers Warranty (HBW). When the company enrolled a home with HBW, Osborne paid a fee and filled out forms that stated the following: “By signing below, you acknowledge that you CONSENT TO THE TERMS OF THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION contained therein.” HBW then issued warranty booklets to the new homeowners that stated: “Any and all claims disputes and controversies by or between the Homeowner, the Builder, the Warrant Insurer and/or HBW shall be submitted to arbitration.”…
In the medical field, it is extremely important to notify patients of any probability that during a procedure there are a number of things that could affect the outcome. Thus avoiding a case of malpractice or a violation of the HIPAA Act. In the case of Canterbury vs. Spence there was a violation of the HIPAA Act where a doctor did not inform the patient of the potential risks that are involved with a spinal surgery. The patient was told about the surgery but did not ask any further details of the surgery itself nor did the patient ask about the risks that are involved when the doctor did not inform him. As the patient was recovering from his surgery he had an incident where he had fallen when getting out of his hospital bed and was almost paralyzed. There can be many sides to a story but the most important subject of this case is the fact that the patient was not informed of the risks of the surgery nor did he ask for additional information.…
4)The case we read in class that I enjoyed the most was State of Connecticut v. Cardwell. I primarily liked it because it best exemplifies the difference and complexity regarding the sale of goods and the helps reflect the distinction between a “shipment” and “destination” contracts. I disagree with the trial courts judgment that Cardwell sold tickets within Connecticut and thereby violated Connecticut statute. However, I agree with the judgment of the court after the appeal. The transfer of goods occurred in Massachuestes, therefore the sale of the tickets, as defined by the code, occurred in Massachusts.…
Charles Baker sued Joe Carr because he explained that the legislature of Tennessee failed to represent urban citizens and overrepresented rural citizens. A law in Tennessee required every district to be redrawn every ten years, but Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901. Baker stated that Urban areas had grown in population and should be represented as equal as rural areas. He also said that urban areas failed to receive “equal protection of the laws” , required by the Fourteenth Amendment.…
Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton (1989). This civil law case refined the actual malice standard.…
Criminal jurisdiction and civil jurisdiction brings about the protective jurisdiction of courts. They necessitate the occasions for instituting the proceedings. Further criminal and civil jurisdiction therefore implies with respect to the mature of the subject matter and civil or criminal mature of the actions. Such an action therefore does not aim in the creation of another authority. Territorial aspects may come in hand, however the nature of the action determines the jurisdiction the case will be handled. It merely extends the limits of the particular jurisdiction. It is therefore not mandatory.…
Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state's Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say, “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal, but it has never said how much is too much. We were assigned to find out whether the gerrymandering in the case was justiciable or not. After 3 class periods of research and then some we have come to the conclusion that the political gerrymandering that happened in this case is not justiciable. It is not justiciable because gerrymandering isn't in the constitution, a very similar court case happened and it was not justiciable and lastly Insert: Mattie’s Argument (Shorter Form For Thesis Statement)…
In the Case of Donald Marshall where he was charged for fishing offseason, which went against new regulations that the government has been trying to put into place. Marshall had claimed that “the right to fish on a Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1760-1761 between the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq of what are now the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec” (McGaw, 1), Marshall had the right to fish and hunt offseason due to the fact that his ancestors had fought and signed for him to have that right. The court viewed the Treaty as having no power do to the fact that the policies have changed within Canada, many of the things that were promised in the treaty no longer applied to the current times.…
McWilliams V Dunn Supreme Court of the United States Introduction The Dunn v. McWilliams case is a famous court case that was heard before the supreme court of United States in April 24, 2017. The case involved James McWilliams as the petitioner against Jefferson Dunn was the commissioner and was representing the Alabama department of corrections. The focus of the case was the sixth amendment of the US constitution was useful in providing for the right to the assistance of an attorney to represent them in defense. However the oral arguments in the case pointed out that it was unclear on whether the defendant’s right to an attorney allows for him to an independent expert who would be devoted in advocating specifically for the defense’s case.…
Upon announcement of this year's National History Day theme: Rights and Responsibilities in History, our group toyed with several topics. Skimming through rights in history, a thought about the mentally ill people, led us to selecting the Rights of the Mentally Retarded. When focusing on research, we came to the realization that the topic was indeed to braud. Our topic was then narrowed down to, The Right of the 8th Amendment for the Mentally Retarded in Prison. We then discovered court cases over the rights of the mentally retarded in prison, and decided that the case that appealed the most was Penry v Lynaugh. Resulting our topic to be: The Right of the 8th Amendment for the Mentally Retarded in Prison: Penry v Lynaugh.…
The federal courts: federal district courts, court of appeals, and Supreme Court hear very important and delicate cases. The court of appeals hear cases that can over turn a conviction of an innocent person and cases from defendants who are trying to get a sentence reduced, and making sure their sentencing is within the law. The court of appeals does not only hear criminal cases. They also hear cases making sure different agencies are abiding by the law. For example, the case EME Homer City Generation vs. Environmental Protection Agency which took place in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, was making sure The EPA was abiding by the law and doing everything they could to maintain clean air. The judge’s…