In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1‚ an action was brought by an English company‚ James Morrison & Co Ltd‚ against three defendants‚ J McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading
how the dystopic setting in James McTeigues V for Vendetta‚ helped the viewer understand how authoritarian regimes come about and how difficult it is to stop them. The film is based on the 1980’s graphic novel by David Lloyd‚ and expresses his foresight of the corrupt government. Overall this essay will explain how the bleak and repressive setting with the use of visual and verbal techniques can show us how a dystopic regime can be cruel and corrupt. V for Vendetta is set in a futuristic London
Premium V for Vendetta
Shivon Mansfield 1. Legal Citation: Bethel School District v. Fraser (478 U.S. 675‚ 1986) 2. Parties Involved: One of the parties involved in this case is Matthew Fraser‚ high school student‚ and his father. They are both the respondents‚ the defendants in the case. The other party was the Bethel School District. The school district is the plaintiff in this case. 3. Case Facts: On April 26‚ 1983‚ Matthew Fraser gave a speech nominating another student for an elected position. The speech was given
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Question 6‚ April 2006: Solution to fe1 question Bell Computers could attach liability to either Chemical Supply or Industrial Estates under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Chemical Supply’s Liability Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who “for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes‚ must keep it in at his peril‚ and if he does not do so ‚ is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
patents‚ utility patents and design patents. A utility patent can be claimed if the invention has purpose or useful function and a design patent protects the appearance of a product and not how the invention actually functions. In the recent Apple Inc. V. Samsung Electronincs Co. case‚ Apple sued Samsung for copying the design and functions of their Iphone 4 and IPad 2. On August 24th‚ a court in California ruled Samsung violoated Apple’s tradedress and Apple software patents . The court ordered Samsung
Premium Invention Apple Inc. Patent
Miranda v. Arizona American Government This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights‚ ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case. ‘On the third of March in 1963‚ an eighteen year old girl‚ “Lois Ann Jameson” (Sonneborn 6)‚ was leaving Paramount Theaters in downtown Phoenix’ (Sonneborn 7). Jameson would always take the bus
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States
“God hates you.” “You’re going to hell.” Could you imagine having to bury your child that returned to American soil‚ dead‚ after fighting a war‚ listening and seeing these kinds of statements? When burying a loved one‚ a person should not have to deal with people picketing at a private funeral. That person is in enough pain and emotional loss for having to bury a family member. This is not more of an inappropriate or inconsiderable time than ever to be causing a negative scene and displaying a strong
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
affiliates. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 1 Cranch 137‚ 5 U.S. 137‚ 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.)‚ 2 L.Ed. 60 (Cite as: 1 Cranch 137‚ 5 U.S. 137 (U.S.Dist.Col.)‚ 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.)) Page 1 Supreme Court of the United States William MARBURY v. James MADISON‚ Secretary of State of the United States. Feb. 1803. West Headnotes Action 13 2 250k3 Existence and Adequacy of Other Remedy in General 250k3(2) Remedy at Law 250k3(4) k. Acts and Proceedings of Public Officers and Boards and Municipalities
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus United States
but by 1965‚ in Griswold v. Connecticut‚ the Supreme Court ruled that a law preventing access to contraception in Connecticut was unconstitutional. In those few decades of the early 1900s‚ something transformed American society to become tolerant of birth control. In the 20th century‚ America became increasingly interconnected with the rest of the world‚ and this caused social movements and ideas to spread. The societal acceptance of birth control which made Griswold v. Connecticut possible was
Premium United States United States Constitution Immigration to the United States
The case Brandy V Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission challenges the constitutional validity of the scheme for the enforcement of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) determination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The High Court of Australia had decided that since HREOC was not constituted as a court according to Chapter III of the Constitution‚ and therefore was not able to exercise judicial power of commonwealth and enforce any subsequent decisions. The
Premium Law Human rights United Kingdom