and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the Archers sued. The Warners filed for bankruptcy and the Archers brought the claim to the Bankruptcy Court to find the debt nondischargeable. Leonard Warner agreed to a consent order
Premium Appeal United States Jury
decisions are given in public. These decisions are open to discussion and criticism by the media and public. The basic idea behind the open courts system is that justice
Premium Law Judge Jury
decision of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to ban photographers and Court TV from the proceedings was wrong‚ based on the constitutional rights of the public and previous statutes. This paper will cover various cases involving televised court proceedings and public opinion concerning the media coverage of criminal trials. Table of Contents Background 4 Cameras in the Court 5 Supreme Court 6 Cameras Introduced to the Courts 8 Justification for Televising Moussaoui 9 Summary 10 References
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Court United States Constitution
II. Egregious Harm Analysis However‚ even if we assume that the four witnesses were accomplices and that the trial court erred by failing to submit the accomplice witness instruction to the jury‚ the error does not rise to the level of egregious harm. On appeal‚ we use the heightened harm standard because Appellant did not object to the absence of the accomplice-witness definition during trial. Arteaga‚ 521 S.W.3d at 338. “Under the egregious harm standard‚ the omission of an accomplice witness
Premium Law Jury Court
Sheriff Appeal Court Essay ‘Outline and describe The Sheriff Appeal Court (Civil)‚ which was established on the 1st January 2016’. On the 1st of January 2016 Scotland’s Sheriff Appeals Court extended its ability to not only hear criminal but also civil appeals. The original sheriff court which was established on the 22nd of September 2015 was set up to hear criminal appeals coming from the Sheriff Court. The idea of the appeal court stemmed from Lord Gill‚ who wanted to improve the courts appeal system
Premium Law United Kingdom Court
Small Claims Courts Small Claims courts are a crucial aspect of the Canadian Legal system that could even be relevant to you one day. Small Claims courts are were created to try and give the average Joe a cheap‚ simple way to settle any type of arguments involving property or finances‚ without necessarily having to know a whole lot about law. You do not need to know many legal terms and the case usually consists of you telling your story for the judge to make a decision. It is a court that was
Premium Lawyer Dispute resolution Judge
CHAPTER – IV THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT‚ 1971: A CRITIQUE 1.1 INTRODUCTION After discussing concept‚ historical background and constitutional aspect in the proceeding chapters‚ an attempt has been made in this chapter to discuss in detail the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act‚ 1971. Rule of Law is the basic principle of governance of any civilized and democratic society. The principle asserts supremacy of law bringing under its purview everyone‚ individuals and institutions at par
Premium Common law Judge Court
The Structure of the English Court System Courts of First Instance Courts of first instance are where matters are first heard and where the FACTS of the case are determined‚ for criminal courts‚ these can either be Magistrates courts or Crown courts. All cases (even murder) are first heard in a magistrate’s court‚ and if the cases are too serious then they are transferred up to higher court (Crown Court) this is mostly indictable offenses. Magistrate courts decide whether the defendant is guilty
Premium Appeal Court Crime
Judge Nunley held the court cases at the Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse‚ located at 501 I street in Sacramento‚ California. I attended the courthouse on April 6‚ 2017‚ from 1:45pm to 2:45pm in courtroom: No. 2 on the 15th floor. I attended two waivers of indictment‚ arraignment and change of plea cases. The cases involved the U.S. versus Hakob Sergoyan and the U.S. versus Stanislav Sarber. They both where tried for the same crime‚ and ended up presenting themselves to the Judge at the same time
Premium Crime Law Criminal law
2. Decision has to be taken in favor of Perry. In this case‚ Alice was a dual agent. When representing two principals it is likely the interest of one party was to suffer. Alice has breached her fiduciary to both Perry and David. After Perry discovered that David employed Alice he had the right to rescind. 8. In this case there are judgment for Timothy assuming that a lawyer acting reasonably would have had the opportunity to realize the revised statute of limitations period. As an agent‚ Cynthia
Premium Law Court Appeal