Ella Encoy High Performance Tire BUS 485 Executive Summary High Performance Tire is a family owned business that was founded in 1952. The founder’s daughter‚ Jane Wallace‚ ran the company before turning over management responsibilities to her son‚ William Wallace in 2001. Since then‚ the company’s performance has declined. High Performance Tire’s reputation in the industry has turned to negative and employee turnover rate have increased. Jane Wallace is concerned of how the business
Premium Cost-benefit analysis Cost Strategic management
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
1. Citation: United States v. Conti‚ E.D.S.C.‚ Western Division‚ No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts: In 2011‚ the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289‚ which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs‚ headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina‚ and the Defendants‚ Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson‚ who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation
Premium United States North Carolina South Carolina
Case 9-3 Monsanto Co. v. Coramandel Indag Products‚ (P) Ltd. TRIBUNAL: India‚ Supreme Court PARTIES: Plaintiff: Monsanto Company‚ St Louis (MC) – parent company of Monsanto Company-India‚ who is alleging that Coramandel Indag Products‚ Ltd. has infringed on two of their patents (Numbers 104120 and 125381) that are used in their weed killer‚ but was actually brought down to one patent. Defendant: Coramandel Indag Products‚ (P) Ltd. (CIP) – an Indian Private Limited Company that has
Premium Patent Invention Patentability
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
felony. Also‚ Battery resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class C felony. Rule: The court used the case‚ Ellyson V. State‚ 603 N.E.2d 1369‚ 1373 (Ind. Ct.App.1992) In that case‚ Ellyson was charged with burglary because he broke into the house where him and his estranged wife lived with the intent to rape her. He was still charged with burglary even though he had the right to possession of the house co-equal with his wife at the time of the breaking and entering. Holding: Jewell was sentenced to an
Premium Felony Marriage Crimes
School 9-500-039 Rev. November 9‚ 1999 D Goodyear: The Aquatred Launch (Condensed) O N In January 1992‚ Barry Robbins‚ Goodyear’s vice president of marketing for North American Tires‚ was contemplating the upcoming launch of the Aquatred‚ a new tire providing improved driving traction under wet conditions. The Aquatred would be positioned in the U.S. market as a replacement tire for passenger cars. Over recent years‚ the replacement tire market had matured and new channels had gained
Premium Tire
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium