Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract
Maryland v. Shatzer‚ 559 U.S. 98 (2010) FACTS: In August of 2003 Detective Shane Blankenship‚ a social worker‚ was assigned to investigate and interview Michael Shatzer about claims that Shatzer had sexually abused his three year old son. At the time of the investigation Shatzer was incarcerated at Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown for an unrelated child-sexual abuse offense. Before asking Shatzer any questions‚ Detective Blankenship informed Shatzer of his rights‚ Shatzer then obtained
Premium Child abuse Human sexual behavior Prison
Briefing the Case Assignment In the renowned Supreme Court Case of Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education‚ the rule of law was held to be that retaliating against a person because he has complained of being discriminated on the grounds of sex falls under a branch of intentional sex discrimination‚ which is encompassed by Title IX‚ Education Amendments of 1972. This was an important case with respect to intentional sex discrimination and never before had such principle of law been enunciated
Premium Complaint Discrimination Pleading
Case analysis: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11; [2009] AC 874; AER 205 The claimant of this case was the widow and daughter of Mr Drummond. They brought a claim against the council for damages in negligence‚ the essential legal complaint was that the local authority had failed to warn the deceased about the meeting before‚ and that they acted in a way that was incompatible with his right to life‚ under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Session
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
U.S. v. Fior D ’Italia‚ Inc. 536 U.S. 238‚ 122 S.Ct. 2117 U.S.‚2002. June 17‚ 2002 (Approx. 17 pages) |[pic] | 536 U.S. 238‚ 122 S.Ct. 2117‚ 153 L.Ed.2d 280‚ 89 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-2883‚ 70 USLW 4539‚ 70 USLW 4565‚ 2002-2 USTC P 50‚459‚ 2002-2 C.B. 875‚ Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16736B‚ 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5315‚ 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6699‚ 15 Fla. L. Weekly
Premium Internal Revenue Service Taxation in the United States Tax
investigators get the training and knowledge they need prior to conducting even one interview. They also should have classes yearly that reinforce and go over any changes in the law. One case that every company with union employees need to understand is the landmark case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten‚ Inc. (CASE INFO) During the course of an investigatory interview‚ the employee asked for and was denied the presence
Premium Police Interview Interrogation
Marbury v. Madison (1803) FACTS: In 1801 President John Adams in his last few weeks of Presidency appointed John Marshall as third chief justice of the United States to replace Oliver Ellsworth whom had resigned. The Senate confirmed Marshall but he also continued as secretary of state. Because of the Organic Act passed by the Federalist Congress‚ Adams had to appoint 42 justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Within the election confusion Marshall who was the outgoing secretary
Premium
Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores‚ Inc. Timothy M McDonald Webster University: HRMG 5700 QA Spring II‚ 2015 Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores‚ Inc. Case Summary Pam Huber sustained a permanent injury that would not allow her to perform the essential functions of her position as an order filler. Huber asked for a reasonable accommodation in the form of taking a vacant position as a router. Both Huber and Wal-Mart agreed that the position was vacant and equivalent. Wal-Mart did not automatically assign Huber to
Premium United States Discrimination Appeal
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)FactsMarbury was commissioned to serve as a judge by former president John Adam. The former Secretary of State and the present Chief Justice John Marshall failed to deliver the commission before President Thomas Jefferson started his term. The current Secretary of State‚ James Madison‚ under Jeffersons orders‚ did not deliver the commission. Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver said commission. HoldingMarburys application
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. Facts: K. M. Nanavati was the second in Indian Naval Ship when this case was brought up. He was charged with the offence of murder of Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja‚ a businessman of Bombay. The High Court ordered Nanavati imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This case is of appeal which arises after the life imprisonment judgement of the Bombay High Court. The appellant’s wife was found to have illicit relations with the deceased respondant‚
Premium Evidence Criminal law Mumbai