Abstract In the case of White v. Gibbs‚ the plaintiff‚ Mrs. Debbie White‚ sued O’Malley’s Tavern alongside Patrick Gibbs. Gibbs served as bartender at the tavern during the night in question. Mrs. White seeks settlement under the state of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act. Under the Dram Shop Act‚ a bartender assumes liability to any persons injured who were served alcohol while exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication (Todd‚ 1986). Since the two parties reside in different states‚ the case was brought to the
Premium Civil procedure Plaintiff United States
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant‚ Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan‚ took almost $30‚000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently‚ and returned the money before any charges were filed‚ but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment
Premium
The Hebei Spirit Oil Spill (HSOS) in December 7‚ 2007 spilled approximately 10‚900 tons of crude oil in about 10 km off the Taean coastline in South Korea. Due to the astronomical and irrecoverable damage upon the marine ecosystem and the overall living standards of the residents‚ the oil spill accident has been notoriously named as the “worst oil spill accident” occurred in Korea. Nevertheless‚ though almost a decade have passed since the outbreak of the HSOS in Korea‚ it appears that compensation
Premium Petroleum Oil spill Exxon Valdez oil spill
McWilliams V Dunn Supreme Court of the United States Introduction The Dunn v. McWilliams case is a famous court case that was heard before the supreme court of United States in April 24‚ 2017. The case involved James McWilliams as the petitioner against Jefferson Dunn was the commissioner and was representing the Alabama department of corrections. The focus of the case was the sixth amendment of the US constitution was useful in providing for the right to the assistance of an attorney to represent
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
to take on something ‘bigger and bolder’?? World Bank (2001) with its Urban Transport Strategy Review alleged that the public transport has a very poor image and reputation. It is associated with very low earnings and exploited crews. In the case of the Philippines‚ we see how ‘boundaries’ set by transport operators leads to the despicable behaviour of drivers‚ thus contributing to the negative image of the sector. Moreover‚ urban congestion‚ adverse environmental impacts resulting from the
Premium Emission standard Carbon dioxide Greenhouse gas
faced by Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company involving their monumental proposed investment into their Nigerian operations. When global companies experience extreme criticism such as Shell‚ they are usually tasked with identifying optimum solutions to reverse the negativity. In addition to assessing the challenges‚ this analysis provides some potential strategies that can be implemented to resolve the issues within this case. Problem Statement Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company proposed to execute
Premium Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Nigeria
Answers 1.) The PHOSPHOLIPIDS form a lipid bilayer‚ which acts as a semipermeable membrane. A semipermeable membrane can transit some compounds but not others. “Some things can pass‚ others cannot!” shows this. 2.) The aquaporin’s allow the H2O molecules to go through the phospholipid bilayer. Aquaporin’s are a transmembrane protein that acts as a channel that allows H2O to pass through. H2O can also enter the cell by diffusion through the membrane but is not as sufficient. 3.) The transmembrane
Premium Oxygen Cell membrane Protein
NATIONAL POWER G.R. No. 152093 CORPORATION‚ Petitioner‚ Present: CORONA‚ C.J.‚ CARPIO‚ VELASCO‚ JR.‚ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO‚ BRION‚ - versus - PERALTA‚ BERSAMIN‚ DEL CASTILLO‚ ABAD‚ VILLARAMA‚ JR.‚ PEREZ‚ MENDOZA‚ SERENO‚ REYES‚ and PERLAS-BERNABE‚ JJ. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and RODRIGO A. TANFELIX‚ Promulgated: Respondent. January 24‚ 2012 x ---------------------------------
Premium Law Official Construction
Terry v. Ohio: Martin McFadden was a police officer in Ohio who noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting suspiciously. While watching these people from his police car‚ Officer McFadden noticed that these two men appeared to be planning a criminal attack. The two men were walking back and forth in front of a store while conspiring with each other. When McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a law enforcement officer‚ he walked them down the street and frisked them for
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29‚ 2014 and decided on June 25‚ 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.
Premium