1 2 CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1 I INTRODUCTION The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case‚ analyze both the High Court majority
Premium Common law Law Crime
PROJECT REPORT-SYNOPSIS ON “An ORGANISATIONAL STUDY AT In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of MBA degree Submitted By USHA.B Register Number: 10QZCMA109 Under the guidance of Prof. MrS. ANUPAMA.K.MALAGI Submitted to Bangalore University‚ Bangalore. Bangalore Institute of Management Studies # 35‚ opp. R.V. College of engineering‚ Mysore Road
Premium Management Strategic management Gratitude
PROJECT A CASE ANALYSIS ON Stilk v Myrick 16 December 1809 (1809) 2 Campbell 317 170 E.R. 1168 BY ROHAN GOSWAMI NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY‚ ODISHA ROLL NUMBER: 042 SEMESTER: SECOND SEMESTER COURSE: B.A. L.L.B Email: 12BA042@nluo.ac.in FEBRUARY 2013 This case analysis forms a part of the internal assignment and was assigned by the subject Professor Mr Rangin Pallav Tripathy. Issues that would be dealt with in the following case analysis: * The Law as it stood before the Case‚
Premium Contract Gentlemen's agreement Consideration
ruled that a Kentucky statute and the United States First Amendment did not authorize his refusal to identify his informers. When Branzburg appealed‚ the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition. This appeal was not the end of Branzburg’s case. A second case arose from a story published on January 10‚ 1971‚ and involved him describing details about the usage of drugs in Frankfort‚ Kentucky. In order for him to accurately report this story‚ he had to spend two weeks interviewing dozens of drug users
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Grand jury
ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury
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
Livestock Products in India M. B. Dastagiri jk"Vªh; d`f"k vkfFkZdh ‚oa uhfr vuqla/kku dsUnz NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY RESEARCH NCAP Publication Committee S Selvarajan B C Barah Suresh Pal Rasheed Sulaiman‚ V P Adhiguru NCAP has been established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) with a view to upgrading agricultural economics research through integration of economic input in planning‚ designing‚ and evaluation of agricultural research
Premium Supply and demand Price elasticity of demand Elasticity
search a student while law enforcement officers must have probable cause. In the cases of Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding‚ the issues of search and seizure of a student in school are laid out in different scenarios that clearly portray the difference between a constitutional search and an unconstitutional search. The concept of reasonable suspicion is sufficient for the extended search in the Best V. New Jersey case because the student was in clear violation of school policy and the search was
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Police
Three Executives of a well-known multi-national company decided to form a new company‚ named New Star Company Limited in 1974. These three executives were becoming close to their retirement age. Pifco-Zen Chen Company Limited‚ the company that they worked for had been in business for the last 80 years. It was their previous employers policy to retire the executives with a golden hand-shake worth approximately US120‚000 each. The three executives occupied the following position with Pifco-Zen Chen
Premium Audit External auditor Financial statements
Case study James Price is an Information Technology consultant with specific expertise in website design. His consultancy is doing well‚ but he would really like to gain another client to ensure that he has enough work for the foreseeable future. One Saturday‚ at his brother Anthony’s 40th birthday celebration‚ James is approached by Mark Jackson‚ a store owner‚ who James has met previously at some of his brother’s other social functions. Mark explains to James that he is looking to revamp
Premium Contract