CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
1/23/2015 BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. | Islamicbanker’s Weblog Islamicbanker’s Weblog Just another WordPress.com weblog BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION [1966] 1 QB 742‚ [1965] 3 All ER 81‚ [1965] 3 WLR 863‚ [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218‚ 8 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 424 HEARING-DATES: 31 May‚ 1‚ 25 June 1965 25 June 1965 CATCHWORDS: Bank — Cheque — Condition restricting use — New cheque book on bank’s change to computer mechanisation
Premium Bank Cheque Contract
[GRN 110249 August 21‚ 1997] ALFREDO TANO‚ BALDOMERO TANO‚ DANILO TANO‚ ROMUALDO TANO‚ TEOCENES MIDELLO‚ ANGEL DE MESA‚ EULOGIO TREMOCHA‚ FELIPE ONGONION‚ JR.‚ ANDRES LINIJAN‚ ROBERT LIM‚ VIRGINIA LIM‚ FELIMON DE MESA‚ GENEROSO ARAGON‚ TEODORICO ANDRE‚ ROMULO DEL ROSARIO‚ CHOLITO ANDRE‚ ERICK MONTANO‚ ANDRES OLIVA‚ VITTORIO SALVADOR‚ LEOPOLDO ARAGON‚ RAFAEL RIBA‚ ALEJANDRO LEONILA‚ JOSE DAMACINTO‚ RAMIRO MANAEG‚ RUBEN MARGATE‚ ROBERTO REYES‚ DANILO PANGARUTAN‚ NOE GOLPAN‚ ESTANISLAO ROMERO‚ NICANOR
Premium Trial court Wound
Adarand v. Pena 1. What constitutional issue is raised in the Adarand litigation? The issue is an affirmative action case that make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court was being asked to decide whether categorizing citizens by race in order to determine the kind of treatment those individuals would receive was constitutional or not. This is not something new to be tried within the United States Supreme Court system. Attorneys for each side of the Adarand v. Pena case presented to the
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
2.1 (a) In the decision of District Court of New South Wales‚ Appellant (Ms Derrick) owed the Respondent (Rosannie Cheung) a duty of care‚ as she was driving at such a speed that it was beyond her ability to stop the car in time and notice that a child which suddenly darted from one of the parked cars. In addition‚ nearby shops and houses combined with the date‚ Saturday morning shortly before Christmas‚ should have alerted Ms Derrick that small children might be playing around‚ so she needed to
Premium Law Tort Negligence
The plaintiff‚ Francis Hannigan‚ filed a motion to the Supreme Court of NSW pleading that the defendant‚ Inghams Enterprises‚ entered into a binding contract on the terms of a draft contract supplied to Mr Hannigan by Inghams Enterprises. Originally‚ Mr Hannigan entered into a contract with a company called Sunnybrand Chickens. As part of the contractual agreement‚ Hannigan would grow chickens on behalf of the suppliers on his farm property for the sole purpose of commercial trade. In 2011‚ Sunnybrand
Premium
Problems arise when a patient is not satisfied with care provided by the doctor or in extreme cases when a patient dies. Since most of the time it is hard to clearly determine whether the outcome was solely a result of the course of treatment chosen by the doctor or whether other factors played a role too‚ quite often patients take their grievances to court to seek justice. What makes these kind of cases complicated is the “What would have been if…?” scenarios where one can only guess what the outcome
Premium Physician Medicine Supreme Court of the United States
allowing Turner to continue to work as a shaker table inspector. When analyzing this case‚ Turner’s medical problems appeared to be limited to her job as a shaker table inspector. She was a qualified individual for the job and received several accommodations under the ADA‚ but her medical problems did not limit any major life sustaining activities. She had difficulty with very few activities. As stated in the case‚ “the activities in which she can participate in are limited and do not require any
Premium Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Disability United States
Name Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch‚ Inc. 706 F.Supp. 1442 D.Colo. 1988. December 14‚ 1988 Procedural History: The mother and widow of deceased resort guests took an action against the resort‚ its owner‚ and others because these two deceased guests lost their lives in boating accident. Mr. Watters‚ defendant and the owner of the resort‚ brought an action against the verdict for revised decision because the trial court found him guilty. The case came in front of the court on action of defendants
Premium Plaintiff Court Jury
Case Name: National Legal Services Authority (Petitioner) v Union of India & Ors. (Respondent). Court Name: Supreme Court of India. Bench: J.‚ K.S. Radhakrishnan & J.‚ A.K. Sikri. Date of Decision: April 15‚ 2014. Citation: AIR 2014 SC 1863. Statement of Facts: 1. The National Legal Services Authority filed a writ petition no. 400 of 2012 seeking relief that Hijras/ Eunuchs/ Transgenders (herein after refer as TG) be given legal status as ‘third gender’ with legal and constitutional provision.
Premium Human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights Law