plaintiff-appellee‚ vs. EDUARDO GELAVER‚ accused-appellant. Facts: At 7:00 a.m. of March 24‚ 1988‚ Randy Mamon heard shouts coming from the house of Tessie Lampedario in Barangay Poblacion‚ Municipality of Sto. Niño‚ South Cotabato. He saw the appellant and a woman having a heated argument. Thereafter‚ appellant held the neck of the victim‚ dragged her and with a knife on his right hand‚ stabbed the latter three times on the breast. Appellant then went out of the gate and fled in the direction
Premium Marriage Criminal law Family
Thomas Midkiff * Title: U.S. v. Wise‚ 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000) * Facts: John Cain met employee Oliver Dean Emigh (“Emigh”) and owner John Roberts at the Bargain Barn in March of 1998. John Cain (“Cain”) was a self-employed computer consultant. John Roberts (“Roberts”) explained to Cain that he needed documents typed for Republic of Texas (“ROT”) legal matters due to being a member of the ROT. Cain met with Johnie Wise and Roberts the next day at the Bargain Barn to discuss
Premium United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
and how to assess the reasonableness of institutional delay. Some of the factors that the Supreme Court considers in regards to whether a delay is reasonable or not includes reasons for the delay‚ length of the delay‚ prejudicial effect on the Appellant and any waiver of time periods. In R v. Morin‚ on behalf of the majority‚ Sopinka J. explained that depending on the presence or absence of prejudice‚ the administrative guidelines for institutional delay could be adjusted. Between committal and
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Crime
are both examples of recklessness. (Vanuata‚ 2003) (Archive‚ 1976) The prosecution were informed that the appellants must have been indifferent to be able see a serious risk or harm. In this situation inadvertence would not have been enough. Lord Justice commented on the fact that any criticism that would have been made would lead to the decision being unfundly favourable towards the appellants. This means that any appeals against conviction would fail. Regarding to the sentencing Stones was accused
Premium Family United Kingdom Marriage
INTRODUCTION: The concept of murder and culpable homicide are arguably the most complicated of provisions within the Indian Penal Code .Culpable homicide and murder closely resembling each other and at times it become difficult to distinguish between the two‚ as the causing of death is common to both. Further‚ there must necessarily be criminal intention or knowledge in both culpable homicide and murder .culpable homicide is the genus‚ murder is its species. However‚ the difference between culpable
Premium Murder Life imprisonment Causality
Page 1 ICLR: Appeal Cases/1897/ARON SALOMON (PAUPER) APPELLANT; AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED RESPONDENTS. BY ORIGINAL APPEAL. AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED APPELLANTS; AND ARON SALOMON RESPONDENT. BY CROSS APPEAL. - [1897] A.C. 22 [1897] A.C. 22 [HOUSE OF LORDS.] ARON SALOMON (PAUPER) APPELLANT; AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED RESPONDENTS. BY ORIGINAL APPEAL. AND A. SALOMON AND COMPANY‚ LIMITED APPELLANTS; AND ARON SALOMON RESPONDENT. BY CROSS APPEAL. 1896 Nov. 16
Premium Corporation Limited liability Appeal
ARTICLE 10 – FREEDOM OF SPEECH‚ ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION ♠ Under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution ‚ 3 rights are given ie o Freedom of speech & expression o Freedom of assembly o Freedom of association Freedom of speech & expression ♠ Freedom of speech is not absolute because of the need to balance the needs/ interests of the society/ community as a whole. Case of PP v Ooi Kee Saik (1971) per Raja Azlan Shah J‚ “ There cannot
Premium Freedom of speech Human rights United States Constitution
The appellant was required to do the presentation and submit the academic write up for her final exam. However she lost all the stored data due to hard disk crashed one day before final date for the academic write up submission. Therefore she only able to submit all of her write up notes copied from Methuen commentary. At first‚ the University’s boards of examiners accused the appellant academic write up for plagiarism. She then told the boards
Premium Law Jury Criminal law
Cases in Canadian Law Dehghani v. Canada: The appellant‚ a citizen of Iran‚ arrived in Canada on May 13‚ 1989‚ and claimed refugee status. After being questioned in the primary examination line‚ he was referred to a secondary examination‚ which involved a long wait‚ and‚ as he did not speak English‚ an interpreter was provided for him. At the secondary interview‚ the appellant omitted significant facts. This case involves two issues that are worthy of analysis‚ as he claims‚ first of all‚ that
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States Canada
8A(1) Criminal Law -- Sedition -- Publication of false news -- Conviction on uncorroborated evidence of one witness -- Whether witness was corroborated by own former statement -- Seditious Act 1948 s 6(1) -- Evidence Act 1950 ss 73A & 157 The appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge was under s 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 for maliciously publishing false news in the form of a pamphlet entitled ’Mangsa Dipenjarakan’. The second charge was under s
Premium Appeal Court Judge