personality‚ a company being a legal entity independent of its members‚ can enter into contracts and own property in its own right‚ can sue and be sued and also taxed in its own name. The principle of corporate entity was established in the case of Salomon v A. Salomon ‚ now referred to as the ‘Salomon’ principle. The facts of this case were that the owner of a business sold it to a company he had formed‚ in return for fully paid-up shares to himself and members of his family‚ and secured debentures
Premium Business Legal entities Types of business entity
Janel Mitchell Ms. Winter Honors Civics & Economics B-1 Case name: DC V. Heller A controversial topic came about in the year of 2008. It was concerning whether or not DC’s gun law was following along the lines of the Second Amendment Rights. A man by the name of Dick Anthony Heller was a special police officer and had gone in to register for a handgun for his home. The true underlying issue was whether or not the rights were protected under the Second Amendments which states: The
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
1985 Moore‚ Rebecca. 1988. In Defense of Peoples Temple – And Other Essays. Oberschall‚ Anthony. Social Movements: Ideologies‚ Interests‚ Ideas. London: Transaction Publication‚ 1997 "Primary Sources Guyana." Alternative Considerations of Jonestown. 1 Feb. 2007. 10 June 2008 (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/PrimarySources/guyana.htm). Richardson‚ James. "People ’s Temple and Jonestown: a Corrective Comparison and Critique." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 19 (1980): 239-255
Premium Sociology
keller v [Type the company name] | Keller v. Inland Metals | Unit 2 | | Sherry Rhodes | 11/2/2011 | [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] | According to the facts of the case Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning‚ Inc‚ the question arises if there was an express warranty presented
Premium Contract law Implied warranty Warranty
Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper‚ I will explain the origins and background in the case‚ discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised‚ and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision. Origins and background of the case In the late 1700 ’s‚ John Adams was President. Adams was a member of the Federalist
Premium James Madison United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
[1893] 1 Q.B. 256 1892 WL 9612 (CA)‚ [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 (Cite as: [1893] 1 Q.B. 256) Page 1 *256 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. In the Court of Appeal. CA Lindley‚ Bowen and A. L. Smith‚ L.JJ. 1892 Dec. 6‚ 7. Contract--Offer by Advertisement--Performance of Condition in Advertisement-- Notification of Acceptance of Offer--Wager--Insurance--8 & 9 Vict. c. 109-- 14 Geo. 3‚ c. 48‚ s. 2. The defendants‚ the proprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball‚" issued an
Premium Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Invitation to treat
Miranda V Arizona In the history of the United States‚ the legislative branch of government has developed systems of laws which the judicial branch of government checks. Because of modernization‚ the constitutionality of these laws needs to be reevaluated from time to time. There have been many cases that have caused the government to amend certain laws to protect its citizens. One of the most important cases that was brought to the Supreme Court was the case of Ernesto Miranda V the state of
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
------------------------------------------------- CASE ANALYSIS REX V MCDONALD AND MCDONALD St Qd [1904] 151 ------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION In order for criminal liability to be placed‚ an accused must not only commit a specific act but also a breach of a duty concerned1. This concept was brought to the forefront in the case of R v McDonald and McDonald St R Qd [1904] 151. The Supreme Court of QLD2 was called to consider the case of Angus and Flora McDonald‚ appealing
Premium Criminal law Supreme Court of the United States Law
In the case of Mempa v. Rhay‚ which the accused pleaded guilty with the advice of court-appointed counsel to the crime of "joyriding" and was placed on probation for two years. Then soon after the sentence was deferred because he was involved in a burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison but only would receive 1 year with the advice from the parole. This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus
Lakeman v Mountstephen (1874) LR 7 HL 17‚ 43 LJQB 188‚ 22 WR 617‚ 30 LT 437‚ [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1924 Court: pre-SCJA 1873 Judgment Date: circa 1874 Case History Annotations Case Name Citations Court Date Signal - Lakeman v Mountstephen (1874) LR 7 HL 17‚ 43 LJQB 188‚ 22 WR 617‚ 30 LT 437‚ [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1924 pre-SC JA 1873 circa 1874 Affirming Mountstephen v Lakeman (1871) LR 7 QB 196‚ 36 JP 261‚ 41 LJQB 67‚ 20 WR 117‚ 25 LT 755 Ex Ch circa 1871 Cases referring
Premium Contract Legal terms Debt