NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma‚ 468 U.S. 85 (1984)‚ was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. These antitrust laws were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade. The NCAA was an organization that regulated college athletics‚ and membership was voluntary‚ although NCAA schools were not allowed
Premium National Collegiate Athletic Association College United States
Lucy v. Zehmer I. Statement of the Facts Zehmer owned a Farm that Lucy had made several offers to purchase‚ all of which Zehmer rejected. Lucy met Zehmer in the latter’s restaurant one evening. After drinking‚ they had a substantial discussion about the sale of the farm. Lucy made an offer of $50‚000. Zehmer drafted up Lucy a contract specifying the land‚ the amount‚ title satisfactory to buyer. Lucy took the written agreement and offered $50‚000 to Zehmer who refused to abide to the written agreement
Premium Contract Court
Arshiya Qasba 20141036 B.A LLB section ‘A’ Case: McGuire v. Almy CASE BRIEF Facts: Mcguire‚ a nurse (P) was hired to take care of Almy (D)‚ a mentally unfit person. One day while D was locked up in the room‚ he became violent. P entered the room and saw D holding the leg of a chair in her hand as if she was going to hit someone. The P tried to grab it from D. D struck the P with it and injured her. P sued D for charges of assault and battery
Premium Law Appeal Tort
upheld in regards to Riggs et al v. Palmer case because one should not be granted inheritance by murdering one’s ancestor. For this reason‚ the New York Court of Appeals has decided on a naturalistic approach‚ which has deemed Elmer Palmer guilty for murdering his grandfather‚ thereby prohibiting Palmer from getting anything from his grandfather’s will. This essentially means that the court argues that judges use their morals in order to determine the outcome of cases. Therefore‚ rejecting the idea
Premium
Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say‚ “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal‚ but it has never said how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.‚ Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit‚ 2007 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Alito‚ Justice This is an employment discrimination case that was held by the Supreme Court of the United States. District Court found in favor of the Plaintiff awarding back pay and damages. Goodyear Appealed. The issue argued in the Supreme Court claimed all damages void before Sept. 1997 due to statute of limitations placed on discriminatory claims. The court
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a case enacted by‚ “Gonzalo Mendez‚ William Guzman‚ Frank Palomino‚ Thomas Estrada‚ and Lorenzo Ramirez” who “filed suit on behalf of their fifteen…children and five thousand other minor children of ‘Mexican and Latin descent’” (Valencia‚ 2010‚ p.23). They sued Westminster school district because they were denying their children the right to enter schools near their home. The school was in California and was predominantly White and did not allow any Mexican American
Premium Racism Race African American
City Council) owe a duty of care to the particular plaintiffs in the circumstances? Prior cases really only dealt with the ‘builders’ being responsible for the defect in the construction of a particular structure. In recent cases‚ Sunset Terraces‚ it was outlined that Councils do in fact owe a ‘Duty of Care’ thus the rule in Bowen v Paramount Builders Ltd crafted by Richmond P can be applied to our current case. Consequently‚ when the DCC selected a certifier who negligently approved unsound plans
Premium Tort
WILLIAMS V THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] 248 CLR 156 I INTRODUCTION Williams v The Commonwealth is an excellent example of a significant turning point in Australian Constitutional history. It challenged Executive power‚ the capacity the Commonwealth had to spend public money‚ and its’ power to enter into contracts without the authorisation of Parliament . The breadth of Executive power is covered under s61 of the Constitution‚ and describes activities which the executive can carry out . The Williams
Premium