Case Brief I – Hamer v Sidway Without a complete and detailed background‚ Hamer v Sidway involved an uncle promising his nephew a lump sum of money if the nephew could refrain from drinking alcohol‚ smoking‚ swearing‚ and gambling until his 21st birthday. The nephew fulfilled his end of the promise‚ and the uncle acknowledged that the nephew had rightfully earned the money but asked if he could hold the money in the bank until the nephew was responsible enough to care for it. The uncle died
Premium Appeal Law
1984 and V. for Vendetta: Comparative Paragraph The famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzche once stated‚ “When you gaze long into an abyss‚ the abyss also gazes into you.” Implying the fact that when one strives to overcome a force‚ there is a possibility that one may naturally be altered into being similar to the force they struggle against. In the process of analyzing this quote‚ one can compare the two protagonists Winston and V. from 1984 and V. for Vendetta‚ to comprehend which of the two is
Premium Nineteen Eighty-Four Sacrifice V for Vendetta
Penney WedBetter Professor James Barney LSTD502 Criminal Law Case Brief: State v Stark October 19‚ 2014 Citation: State v. Stark‚ 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992) Posture: Stark appealed upon conclusion of a criminal jury and bench trial to Washington Appellate court from in which he was found guilty of three counts of second-degree assault as a result of exposing three female partners to HIV virus on over 6 occasions where he used a condom some of the time and after vaginal intercourse ejaculated
Premium Law Jury Appeal
As a cause and as a symptom of social hierarchies‚ division of labor is an integral part of the structuring of society. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim both give very different interpretations to the effects causing‚ evolving‚ and caused by this division of labor. On one hand‚ Marx typically vilifies the process‚ finding it in large part responsible for the oppression of one group by another. On the other hand‚ Durkheim treats it as a unifying social force‚ one necessarily maintained for the betterment
Premium Sociology
Missouri v. McNeely (2012) I. Facts A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes‚ his slurred speech‚ and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests‚ and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing‚ the officer took him to a nearby hospital for
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Maryland v. Pringle‚ 540 S. 366 (2003) Facts: A police Officer Snyder stopped a car for speeding on August 7‚ 1999 at 3:16 a.m. Partlow‚ the owner of the vehicle was driving the car‚ Pringle was the front seat passenger‚ and Smith was the back seat passenger. Officer Snyder asked Partlow for his driver’s license and the registration. When Partlow opened the glove box to grab his vehicle registration‚ Officer Snyder saw a large quantity of rolled up cash. After‚ checking Partlow’s license
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat
Henry V and Machiavelli are different in many ways. The main reason why they are different is because they are the leaders from different epochs. Henry V is a leader from medieval times. Machiavelli “The Prince” is a leader from renaissance times. These leaders have different thoughts of a lot of things. For example‚ religion and government but if you really think about they could have the same views. Let’s further on your knowledge this both incredible leaders. To begin‚ Henry V is represented
Premium Political philosophy
Chapter/Case Questions: 1. Chapter 12‚ Yunker V. Honeywell‚ pg 456-459‚ Questions 1-4 1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra‚ 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra‚ 2011). The court meant that
Premium Employment
NOTES OF CASES THECASEOF THE SLIPPERY EQUITY IN Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)‚’ Lord Denning M.R. said: “ (‘ Hard cases make bad law ’) is a maxim which is quite misleading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it.”a Now that it has been decided that there is to be no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal‚ it is worth
Premium Law Common law Criminal law
1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff