29. Introduction 30. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1] evinces the accuracy of Gooley’s observation that the separate legal entity doctrine was a "two-edged sword".[2] At a general level‚ it was a good decision. By establishing that corporations are separate legal entities‚ Salomon’s case endowed the company with all the requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level‚ however‚ it was a bad decision. By extending the
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
Charisma Thorpe Brunswick Political Systems- Final 6 October 2014 Miranda v. Arizona Outline Argued: February 28‚ March 1 and 2‚ 1966 Decided: June 13‚ 1966 Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person being interrogated while in the custody of the police. Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States
Business Law Case Study 4/16/10 Liebeck V McDonald’s Corporation The case of Liebeck V McDonald’s Corporation also known as “The McDonald’s coffee case” is a well known court case which caused a lot of controversy. In February of 1992‚ Stella Liebeck‚ a 79 year old woman from Albuquerque‚ New Mexico sued McDonald’s Corporation for suffering third-degree burns from their product. Mrs. Liebeck and her grandson visited a local McDonald’s drive-thru and ordered a cup of coffee. After pulling away
Premium Tort
August 29). Nation’s Restaurant News‚ Vol. 28‚ issue 34‚ p.1 Kubasek‚ N.‚ K.‚ Brennan‚ B.A.‚ and Browne‚ M.N. (n.d.). The legal environment of business: A critical thinking approach (3rd Ed). In R. Hartigan (Ed.). Ethics and legal concepts for business. Upper Saddle River‚ NJ: Peason/Prentice Hall. Liebeck’s v. McDonald’s Rest.‚ P.T.S. Inc. and McDonald’s International‚Inc. No. CV-93-02419‚ 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist.Ct. August 18‚ 1994). Press‚ A.‚ & Carroll‚ G. (1995‚ March 20). Are lawyers burning
Premium Tort Burn Damages
I. Katz v. U.S. 347 (1967) II. Procedural History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. III. Facts: The petitioner‚ Charles Katz‚ was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. In order to collect evidence against Katz‚ federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Mincey v Arizona 437 US 385 (1978) Court History The Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was convicted in an Iowa District Court; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision. The United States Supreme Court granted cert. Facts During a narcotics raid on petitioner’s apartment by an undercover police officer and several plainclothes policemen‚ the undercover officer was shot and killed‚ and petitioner was wounded‚ as were two
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Texas v. Johnson (1989) In 1984‚ following a protest march through the streets of Dallas‚ Texas against the policies of the Reagan Administration‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was handed an American flag. Outside the Dallas City Hall‚ Johnson through the flag onto the ground‚ poured kerosene on it‚ and set fire to it. Many protesters around Johnson began a chant of‚ "America‚ the red‚ white‚ and blue‚ we spit on you!" While many protesters agreed with what Johnson had done‚ there were several others who
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
from decision of Lower Court1. In this case‚ Harvey is an appellant appealing to Privy Council. b) A respondent is a person against whom an action is raised. In this case‚ the respondent is Facey. c) The following is taken from the case of Harvey v Facey2. There was a dispute between the two parties over the sale of a property named Bumper Hall Pen. The appellants‚ Harvey and his wife‚ telegraphed Facey a message stating ‘’Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest price – answer paid.’’
Premium Contract
Morse v. Frederick Daniel kilasi This case was a major turning point to student rights. It all started when Morse a school-supervised event‚ Joseph Frederick held up a banner with this message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus‚" this was meant to the marijuana smoking. When the Principal Deborah Morse saw the banner she took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified or tried to give a good reason for her actions by stating the school’s policy against
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Bethel School District v. Fraser
Virginia v Black Facts: Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan‚ who burnt a cross on private property. Black states that the cross was burnt to inspire his KKK buddies and that he had no knowledge anyone who might feel intimidated was present let alone could see it. Black was arrested for violating a Virginia statute. Separately‚ O’Mara and Elliott were arrested for violating the same statute after burning a cross in their neighbor’s yard after a dispute. All three men were convicted and
Premium Ku Klux Klan Supreme Court of the United States Law