COURT CASES: Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge In this case of Goldberg v. Kelly we have an issue that discusses the termination of welfare to a recipient. Now what seems to be the issue here is that there used to be no federal or state law on how to regulate this and enforce this but only a procedure that the New York State ’s general Home Relief program adopted to use and follow. The sole issue of the problem is accepting the fact that a person with life depending needs could lose their
Premium Trial Hearing Appeal
R v. Latimer The case with Robert Latimer all began with his twelve year old daughter having cerebral palsy and being quadriplegic. Tracy would suffer from many seizures a day and was also believed to have a brain capacity of a four-month old which caused her to be dependent. Tracy underwent many surgeries to try to give her an “easier” life but nothing seemed to chance any changes. No changes for the better or for the worse. So it wasn’t like she was near death. November 19th 1993‚ she was supposed
Premium United States Jury Supreme Court of the United States
of title by registration rather than registration by title (Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. * Indefeasibility- The registered proprietor holds the title free of all unregistered interests. S42 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). * Registration of a void instrument confers immediate indefeasibility in the absence of fraud (Frazer v Walker [1967]] 1 AC 569. * Sir Garfield Barwick sitting on the Privy Council in Frazer v Walker described it as: “a convenient description of the immunity from
Premium Property Law Copyright
The way that Napster collected revenue was by advertisers. Advertisers would pay Napster to infuse their advertisements on Napster’s web site. There was a law suit against Napster that is referred by A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. Although this case is called A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. it consisted of many record companies that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law suit was filed because it is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights
Premium
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-19650 September 29‚ 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES)‚ INC.‚ petitioner-appellee‚ vs. ENRICO PALOMAR‚ in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER GENERAL‚ respondent-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for respondent and appellant. Ross‚ Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner and appellee. CASTRO‚ J.: In the year 1960 the Caltex (Philippines) Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Caltex) conceived and laid the groundwork
Premium Mail Contract
COMPLAINT Margaret Donnelly‚ the named executor of the estate of Elinor R. Averell‚ filed a complaint against James P. Dillon‚ Esq.‚ on or about January 21‚ 2016. Donnelly alleges that Dillon had neglected the matters related to the estate of Elinor R. Averell‚ failed to adequately account for assets‚ and had failed to respond to anyone including an attorney hired to succeed Dillon. Dillon has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.3‚ 1.4‚ and 8.4(c). FACTS On July 16‚ 2010‚ Elinor R. Averell hired Attorney
Premium Inheritance Tax
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION In re: BAMBI A. HERRERA-EDWARDS‚ Case No. 8:12-bk-15725-KRM Chapter 11 Debtor. / MOTION TO DETERMINE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE DUE TO CLAIMS OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL‚ PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA Creditor‚ ERIC MOORE does hereby file this motion to determine property of the estate and alleges as follows: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Creditor‚ Eric Moore and Debtor‚ Bambi A. Herrera-Edwards entered into
Premium Legal terms Civil procedure Royalties
1) SCHROEDER V LUCY On what contractual grounds could he sue? Schroeder can sue on contractual grounds of unconscionable since the prenuptial agreement was acquired through misrepresentation and duress (Clarkson‚ Miller & Ross‚ 2015). Thus‚ Schroeder can sue on not given an opportunity to get his separate permissible counsel or read the agreement before signing it. Moreover‚ Schroeder can sue on no complete disclosure on Lucy’s debt or assets‚ and fraud since Lucy did not keep her promise to buy
Premium Law Contract Common law
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposing snail in the ginger beer and claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and severe shock upon the sight of the snail. She sought to recover damages from Stevenson‚ claiming that the presence of snail was due to his negligence. Could Mrs. Donoghue bring an action in negligence against Stevenson? Stevenson argued that as they were not in a contractual relationship‚ hence there was no special relationship and therefore he
Premium Contract Contract Tort
Regulation of Real Estate Agency Practice in Malaysia: An Investigation for Nigeria AbayomiIbiyemi1‚ Olayinka Ogungbemi2‚ Rotimi Awodiran3 1 Department of Estate Management‚ Faculty of Built Environment‚ University of Malaya‚ Kuala Lumpur‚ Malaysia yomi1004@googlemail.com 2‚3 Department of Estate Management and Valuation‚ School of Environmental Studies‚ Lagos State Polytechnic‚ Lagos‚ Nigeria Abstract: Nigeria and Malaysia have a similar colonial history. The Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents (MIEA)
Premium Real estate