Clements v Clements case. This case is of great significance which revolves around a severe motorcycle accident that took place from 2009 to 2012‚ which resulted in the plaintiff‚ Mrs Clements suffering severe traumatic injuries. The verdict still remains undecided in the Supreme Court of Canada based on the improper use of the But For Test and The Material Contributions Test. The abundance of information presented in the three court systems depict why is why it is such a difficult case to solve
Premium Law Jury Crime
Mapp v. Ohio‚ noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady‚ Dolly Mapp‚ who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted‚ Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
CASE NOTE MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD KYLE CROSS I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723 Parties Musumeci‚ lessee (Plaintiff) Winadell Pty Ltd‚ lessor (Defendant) Date 4 August 1994 Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) Coram Santow J II LITIGATION HISTORY This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages‚ and claim for relief against forfeiture. III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The
Premium
In the present case‚ the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case‚ Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though‚ his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some‚ but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard‚ this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school‚ so the
Premium United States Discrimination Race
Even though the Convention on the European Convention on Human Rights separates from other human rights treaties because it has its own judicial body‚ looking at their case law for guidance can still be useful. In the Belilos v. Switzerland case‚ the Court decided that a interpretative declaration was to be treated like a reservation. Further‚ because of article 64 § 1 of the Convenetion‚ that requires "precision and clarity" ‚ the reservation in question
Premium Law Contract Contract law
Furman v. Georgia Paper Mary Amon CJS/221 University of Phoenix Gaylia Clark William Henry Furman v. State of Georgia In the year 1972‚ January in the State of Georgia. A gentleman named William Henry Furman went into a house to rob. In the middle of that night the resident woke up to see Furman robbing the house. In the process of escaping Furman tripped and his firearm fell and went off at that very time‚ killing the resident. The death was a tragic one‚ if one could describe. Furman did not
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
After the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896‚ the statement of “separate but equal” was created‚ preventing African Americans from achieving equality. In 1951 in Topeka‚ Kansas‚ a girl named Linda Brown was forbidden from attending Summer Elementary school‚ which was the school closest to her home‚ due to the color of her skin and was instead forced to go to a school for African American children much farther away. With the help of the NAACP‚ the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
History 368 Midterm Essay Examination Part 1‚ #1 Betts v. Brady in 1942 is a court case about an indigent white man named Betts who was charged with robbery. As soon as Betts got arrested he requested council and he was immediately denied. Betts was extremely poor‚ and he was very backwards to society. The reason why he was denied council was because his request for council was not handled as “special circumstances.” Justice Owen Roberts viewed Betts as an ordinary citizen‚ one with “ordinary
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
employer must have ‘strong basis in evidence‚’ that will be subject to ‘disparate impact liability’ if it fails to take discriminatory action.” Similar to City of Richmond v. Croson‚ the court declared there was not sufficient evidence to require special actions to be taken to fight
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Reverse discrimination United States Constitution
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law