GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
testimony of his co-defendant‚ John Bryant‚ Jr.‚ to be considered against him; (5) that the Court erred in permitting the jury to separate overnight on the last day of the trial; and (6) that there were certain erroneous instructions. (Law Justia: State v. Mouzon (1957)‚ n.d.) Holding
Premium Crime Murder Capital punishment
another point which the authors addressed in the article. In Turp v. Canada (2012)‚ the respondent (Canada) was brought up on charges for opting out of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA) (2012). The act was put in place as a measure to ensure Canada meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However the Canadian government withdrew from the KPIA‚ and was subsequently brought to federal court. The court dismissed the case without cost‚ as they found the government’s reasoning for opting
Premium Management Globalization Strategic management
Park Min-jung (20080534) Fact : On June 9‚ 1974‚ Jerome Bourque(Plaintiff) was playing second base on a softball game. Duplechin(Defendant)‚ a member of the opposing team had hit the ball and advanced to first base. After his teammate hit the ball‚ to avoid double play Duplechin ran at full speed into Bourque. As Duplechin ran into Bourque‚ he brought his left arm up under Bourque’s chin. Plaintiff Bourque filed this suit to recover damages for personal injuries received in the collision.
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
Will the law recognize a contract between Moving Earth and Shake and Rattle LTD? Legal Relations Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 held that it is necessary to determine between social and domestic agreements and agreements that are within a commercial context. Alison and Simon agreed to business relations and there was an intention to agree‚ a meeting of the minds. Offer Megalift v Terminals [2009] NSWSC 324 determined quotes can be a binding offer. Berging CJ Eq held that a quote that listed
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
Farwell‚ Benjamin CJU 134 Chp.8‚ Pg 286 Miranda V Arizona FACTS: On March 16‚ 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant‚ and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights‚ he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights‚ although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present
Premium Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Miranda v. Arizona Law
(#4-7) According to the case‚ the plaintiff should not be held as semi liable for his injuries while attending the Daytona International Speedway. My client should receive a decision in his favor because NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway were and are negligent in how
Premium American football Concussion National Football League
search for an alternative to animal testing‚ v. Anjali could resign from the team‚ vi. Anjali could take legal action against PHTA. The stakeholders for each alternative i.e. Anjali‚ ii. HealthySuds team‚ iii. American Academy of Children’s Medicine‚ iv. Users of KidSoap‚ v. People for the Humane Treatment of Animals‚ vi. University of Southern Maine Evaluation of Alternative i: If Anjali makes the individual decision to ignore the threat made by the People for the Humane Treatment of Animals and continues
Premium
SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez was a case that shows how important is for a companies to have rules and regulations regardless Safety. The company must follow OSHA regulations to have a safety work place for the employees. In this case the court was trying to determine if SeaWorld of Florida violated the OSHA General Duty Clause and if the company have a process to reduce the danger that employees have when working with killer wheals. In 2010 Ms. Dawn Brancheau a SeaWorld trainer was performing with
Premium Whale Killer whale Beached whale