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
R. v Burns case Brief Case Facts The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia‚ posing as a mob boss‚ it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They
Premium Appeal Crime Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Kimberly D. Beard‚ Esq. From: Laura Gardner Re: Brandon Berry‚ State of Georgia v. Berry Date: February 27‚ 2013 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Child Was Not in the Defendant’s Care? II. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Elements Have Not Been Met? STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 16‚ 1998 Jamie June (Jamie) completed a detox program for alcohol abuse and she then started Alcoholics
Premium Jury Law Court
at hazing incidents as a tradition or big joke‚ it is dangerous and unacceptable behavior. There is a lot that can be done to prevent hazing. Raising awareness that it is wrong is crucial in preventing such incidents as the one in the Seamons v. Snow case. Coaches who consider potential issues before they occur will be better prepared to meet their legal duties (Gaskin‚ L.‚ 1993). Background On October 11‚ 1993 Brian Seamons‚ a high school football player for Sky View High School in Utah‚ was
Premium University High school College
later found guilty. The petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968‚ the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore‚ a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation‚ accompanied by
Premium Police Crime Constable
MICHAEL E. KLEIBER v HONDA OF AMERICA MFG.‚ INC.‚ Plaintiff-Appellant‚ Defendant-Appellee. FRL 302 – Professor Young Group Project INTRODUCTION This appellate case is about a man‚ Michael Kleiber who suffered a debilitating head injury that ultimately lead to his job termination as a factory worker for Honda. Honda claimed that they were unable to accommodate Kleiber’s disability on the basis that Kleiber was not able to perform the job tasks for any alternate job positions. Honda
Premium Fine motor skill Hand Motor control
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law
Davis v. Davis‚ Justice Daughtrey created an epoche of the law when she‚ unlike previous judges‚ based her decision on the recognition of a new category more relevant to the case rather than relying on one previously established. She casts aside conventional thoughts and residual knowledge by declaring the case to present a "question of first impression" which will require the court to act through common law. Although Justice Daughtrey relates other statutes‚ cases‚ and constitutions to the case‚ she
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
of 5 feet 2 inches. (Dothard v. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977) Rawlinson’s perused her arguments that weight wasn’t an issue to perform the necessary job duties of a corrections officer because of her weight. Rawlinson’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. Rawlinson’s continue with a civil complaint filed by Southern Poverty Law Center and district complaint that’s known as a Supreme Court Case Dothard V. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977)
Premium Rape Gender Sexual intercourse
Death-Qualified Jury It was determined in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois‚ 391 U.S. 510 (1968) that upon the trail and conviction of said name petitioner for murder was sentenced to the death penalty. However their was challenge for cause based on an Illinois statute‚ that allows for any individual juror member that when question at the point of being accepted as potential jurors. If it is determined that he or she would rule in favor of the death penalty‚
Premium Capital punishment Jury Law