Bush v. Gore‚ 531 U.S. 98 (2000)‚ is the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Three days earlier‚ the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier‚ the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board‚ 531 U.S. 70 (2000). In a per curiam decision‚ the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards
Premium President of the United States United States Supreme Court of the United States
1) SCHROEDER V LUCY On what contractual grounds could he sue? Schroeder can sue on contractual grounds of unconscionable since the prenuptial agreement was acquired through misrepresentation and duress (Clarkson‚ Miller & Ross‚ 2015). Thus‚ Schroeder can sue on not given an opportunity to get his separate permissible counsel or read the agreement before signing it. Moreover‚ Schroeder can sue on no complete disclosure on Lucy’s debt or assets‚ and fraud since Lucy did not keep her promise to buy
Premium Law Contract Common law
Identify the most important facts surrounding the case: Dr. Y‚ a physician working for a group practice‚ is concerned about Mr. Abelson’s neurological status. Dr. Y scheduled Mrs. Abelson to be admitted to the hospital for testing. Mrs. Abelson is a 67-year-old female patient of Dr. Y. She was admitted to the hospital for a Cerebral Scan. Mrs. Abelson was admitted to the 4th floor of the hospital. After Mrs. Abelson completed the testing‚ she was returned to a room on the 5th floor. Mrs. Abelson
Premium
Title: Mapp v. Ohio Legal Citation: 367 U.S. 643‚ 81 S.Ct. 1680‚ 6 L.ED.2d. 1081 (1961( Procedural History: Mapp petition for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court for the appreal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Statement of key Issues: 1) was the search of Mapps home a violation of the fourth amendment? 2) Was the evidence used against Mapps in court illegal? Facts: On May 23‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at Mapps Home to ask them questions pertaining to someone
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
I. Summary The V-22 Osprey is an aircraft that is currently used in the military. Its unique design of a tilt rotor system has proven to be useful in different mission in the military. However‚ the Congressional Research Service (2009) in their study has said that this helicopter has multiple aerodynamic issues. During the service of this aircraft demonstrated mechanical issues that affected the elements of aerodynamic flight and emergencies situations that caused the V-22 program in constant upgrades
Premium Management Aircraft Unmanned aerial vehicle
for trespass to her bedroom and communal areas: Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse (1937) 56 CLR 605 ENTERING BEDROOM‚ PLACING PLANTS ON FLOOR Presumably‚ Donald intended (Nickells v Melbourne Corporation (1938) 59 CLR 219) the direct interferences (Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182 (‘Southport’)) of entering Alexis’s bedroom and placing plants on the floor. Donald interfered by entering Alexis’s room without authority (Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 (‘Plenty’)) as Alexis revoked
Premium Law Tort Property
Lopez V. Orosa‚ Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc. G.R. No. L-10817-18 Facts: Enrique Lopez‚ doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castillo Sawmill‚ was invited by Vicente Orosa‚ Jr. to make an investment in the theatre business namely Plaza Theatre Inc. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest‚ however agreed to supply lumber necessary for the construction of the theatre with the assurance that Orosa would be personally liable for any account that the said construction might incur. Lopez was
Free Property Real estate Legal terms
Case: M.Caratan V. Commissioner (71-1 USTC ¶9353) ISSUE: whether the employee-taxpayers were entitled to exclude from their gross incomes the value of lodging furnished to them by their employer‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc.‚ under section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. FACTS: The company‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc‚had a policy‚ established by the taxpayers in their capacity as corporate officers and directors‚ that required supervisory and management personnel to reside on the farm. Company-owned lodging
Premium Corporation Taxation in the United States Tax
Cipla v Roche – Generics Industry Rejoices! For the last two years‚ the Delhi High Court has been the battle ground for a pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla over Roche’s patent for the anticancer drug ‘erlotinib’‚ sold by Roche as ’Tarceva’. On 24 April 2009‚ the Division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing‚ offering for sale‚ selling and exporting its generic version of ‘erlotinib’
Premium Patent application Patent Patentability