THE ATTORNEY GENERAL‚ MALAYSIA v CHIOW THIAM GUAN [1983] 1 MLJ 51 FACT: An application made by the attorney general to have the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim struck out under 0.18 r. 19‚ Rules of High Court 1980 on the ground that the Statement of Claim disclosed no cause of action. The plaintiff sought for a declaration that the mandatory sentence of death under section 57(1) of the Internal Security Act was unconstitutional as being unreasonable‚ oppressive and infringing the equality provision
Premium Law Constitution Crime
1. What type of act used in reaching the Verdict of this case? Why? * The act that been used in this case are Act‚ 1967 under Section 20. This act was used to analyze the case of Teoh Chye Lyn dismissal order by All staff Outsourcing Sdn. Bhd. . 2. What are the factors which are lacking in this case upon reaching the judgment? * Well to be frank‚ there is no many lacking’s in this case. This case is very short‚ simple and easy to understand whereby we can clearly see that the claimant
Premium Critical thinking Judgment Lawsuit
Procedural History The Plaintiff‚ Transamerica Oil Corporation‚ brought suit under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to recover damages resulting from the breach of an express warranty by the defendant‚ Lynes‚ Inc. and Baker International Corporation. A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded Transamerica Oil Corporation $196‚577.62. The defendant appealed the court’s ruling December 21‚ 1983. Defendant claimed that
Premium Appeal Warranty Law
Checkpoint Legal Terms HCR 210 1. Assault: an attempt or threat to do bodily harm to someone that is against the law like not giving a person their required medication or placing a patient in restraints without legal right to 2. Battery: Touching a person without their consent‚ like if a doctor does a physical on someone without written consent 3. Breach of Confidentiality: is when
Premium Law Lawsuit Civil procedure
You asked me to determine whether our client‚ Paul Grantham‚ can challenge the sufficiency of substituted service on his secretary at Mr. Grantham’s accounting office‚ when the landlord sued him individually. I have researched Oklahoma’s service of process statute‚ and I believe that Mr. Grantham’s challenge will be successful. The Oklahoma service of process statute provides that service is valid when copies of the summons and petition are served by personal delivery. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12‚
Premium Service of process Civil procedure
Unit 9 Settlement Letter Final Draft James Draper Legal Writing PA105-01 Professor: Brian Tippens J.D. Law firm of: Chase‚ DiLiver and Billum‚ 456 Main Street‚ Plainview‚ GK‚ 12345 10/31/2010 To: Whack‚ Raze and Runn‚ Attorneys for Sunny Dale Gardens 123 Central Avenue‚ Plainview‚ GK‚ 23456 Attn: Richard Whack Esq
Premium Civil procedure Law Appeal
BUS 115 – Business Law Module 2- Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution Case 3-3 “Discovery” Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material? The party to the law suit should hand over information during the discovery phase. However‚ discovery is allowed only if the information is relevant to the claim or defense
Premium Law Civil procedure Jury
Case Brief example‚ p. 16 text Case Citation Kuehn v. Pub Zone‚ Maria Karkoulas‚ et al‚ 835 A.2d. 692‚ Superior Court of N.J. Appellate Division‚ 2003 Parties Karl Kuehn/Plaintiff/ Appellant. Pub Zone/Defendant/Appellee Original Legal Action PL sues D in negligence for damages from injuries suffered caused by the D’s failure of meeting the duty of exercising reasonable care to protect PL‚ a business patron. Facts Rhino and Backdraft were 2 members of the motorcycle gang by the name of
Premium United States Civil procedure Appeal
Business Law 110 Mr. Blackmun Case Study Problem #1 September 16‚ 2009 Case Study: Arbitration The issue pertaining to this case is whether a court can set aside an arbitration award on the basis that it violates public policy‚ subsequent to Mr. Edson being released from his job after being found intoxicated while on duty and being awarded reinstatement by the arbitrators. Exxon Mobile‚ the employer‚ filed a suit claiming that the award contravenes with public policy‚ which opposes intoxicated
Premium Law Appeal Civil procedure
ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury