1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court. Lee V. Weisman 120 L.EDd. 2d 467 (1992) United States Supreme Court 2. Summary
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal
The question before the Supreme Court concerning the Young v. UPS. Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require an employer to provide the same work accommodations to an employee with pregnancy-related work limitations as to employees with similar‚ but non-pregnancy related‚ work limitation? (http://www.oyez.org/cases) Samuel Bagenstos on behalf of the petitioner argued that UPS violated the second clause of the PDA. To his understanding the second clause means an employee seeking accommodation
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Human rights
Classification between an independent contractor and employee has raised a number of issues throughout the past 50 years. Failing to create an effective formality to be applied by the courts to any particular case‚ it has lead to commercial uncertainty through Australia. This essay will analysis Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 decision regarding the high court process in distinguishing between whether there was an relationship between the employer of employer/employee or employer/independent
Premium Law
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court
Park Min-jung (20080534) Fact : On June 9‚ 1974‚ Jerome Bourque(Plaintiff) was playing second base on a softball game. Duplechin(Defendant)‚ a member of the opposing team had hit the ball and advanced to first base. After his teammate hit the ball‚ to avoid double play Duplechin ran at full speed into Bourque. As Duplechin ran into Bourque‚ he brought his left arm up under Bourque’s chin. Plaintiff Bourque filed this suit to recover damages for personal injuries received in the collision.
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
testimony of his co-defendant‚ John Bryant‚ Jr.‚ to be considered against him; (5) that the Court erred in permitting the jury to separate overnight on the last day of the trial; and (6) that there were certain erroneous instructions. (Law Justia: State v. Mouzon (1957)‚ n.d.) Holding
Premium Crime Murder Capital punishment
GRAHAM v. CONNOR‚ 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Dethorne Graham‚ who is a diabetic‚ asked a friend‚ William Berry‚ to drive him to a store to purchase some juice to neutralize the start of an insulin reaction. When Dethorne Graham entered the store‚ he saw the number of people that would be ahead of him‚ Dethorne Graham hurried out and asked William Berry to drive him to a friend’s house instead. Connor‚ a Charlotte‚ North Carolina police officer‚ became wary after seeing Dethorne Graham quickly enter
Premium Law United States Tennessee v. Garner
Will the law recognize a contract between Moving Earth and Shake and Rattle LTD? Legal Relations Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 held that it is necessary to determine between social and domestic agreements and agreements that are within a commercial context. Alison and Simon agreed to business relations and there was an intention to agree‚ a meeting of the minds. Offer Megalift v Terminals [2009] NSWSC 324 determined quotes can be a binding offer. Berging CJ Eq held that a quote that listed
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance