the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County. The District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. From the judgment of the District Court‚ the Center appeals. Issue: The issue is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b)‚ N.M.S.A. 1953. Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that in a prior case no statutory definition
Premium Court Appeal Appellate court
which a judgment/order of a subordinate Court is challenged before its superior court. Only a person who has been party to the case before the subordinate Court can file an appeal. However‚ at the death of such a person‚ his legal heirs and successors in interest may as well as file or maintain an already filed appeal in many matters. The person filing or continuing an appeal is called the appellant and the concerned Court is termed as the appellate Court. A party to a case does not have any inherent
Premium Appellate court Appeal Court
“Uganda’s criminal laws give judicial officials discretion to decide on the cases they wish to handle and empower them to make phone calls to accused persons to appear before their courts.” With the aid of authorities discuss the veracity of the above statement. With reference to the Black’s Law Dictionary a judicial officer is a person who holds an office of trust‚ authority or command. Judicial officers such as judges and magistrates have discretion to decide on cases they wish to handle however
Premium Jurisdiction Supreme court Supreme Court of the United States
Tennessee v. Reeves. 917 S.W.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Tennessee‚ 1996) On the evening of January 5‚ 1993‚ Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman‚ both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School‚ spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher‚ Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger ’s drink. After that ‚ they would steal Geiger ’s car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
transaction. The trial court ruled for Zehmer holding that Lucy had not established a right to specific performance. On appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia found that Zehmer was sober enough to know what he was doing and that his words and actions warranted a reasonable belief that a contract was intended. Question: In determining whether a party has made a valid offer‚ how does the court determine whether the party had the intent to contract? Holding: The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Court
Professor James Barney LSTD502 Criminal Law Case Brief: State v Stark October 19‚ 2014 Citation: State v. Stark‚ 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992) Posture: Stark appealed upon conclusion of a criminal jury and bench trial to Washington Appellate court from in which he was found guilty of three counts of second-degree assault as a result of exposing three female partners to HIV virus on over 6 occasions where he used a condom some of the time and after vaginal intercourse ejaculated outside the vagina
Premium Law Jury Appeal
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY HILL‚ John Lyster - Disbarred by Consent on November 24‚ 2009 by the Court of Appeals for mishandling two (2) domestic relations cases in which he failed to take prompt action‚ he implied he had paid a judge to expedite his client’s case‚ failed to file an Information Report causing dismissal of his client’s appeal‚ and failed to deposit and maintain his client’s retainer in trust‚ in violation of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1‚ 1.3‚ 1.4‚ 1.5(a)‚ 1.15‚ 7.1(b) and
Premium Lawyer Supreme Court of the United States
From Evernote: | Midterm Cases | Chapter 1: Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors‚ Inc. Trial Court dismissed the suit saying it was property owner’s fault. Issue: An employee of the property owner was killed when a concrete wall collapsed. Should the risk of liability stay only on the property owner‚ or extend to a contractor? Rule: For the past forty years it has been the rule that liability belongs only to the property owner
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
Tennessee v. Reeves. 917 S.W.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Tennessee‚ 1996) On January 5‚ 1993‚ Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman‚ spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher‚ Janice Geiger. Reeves and Coffman were both twelve years old and were students at West Carroll Middle School. They planned that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days and it would be put in Geiger’s drink. After that‚ the two would steal Geiger’s vehicle and drive to the Smoky Mountains
Premium Court Teacher Appeal
| |JEMURI SERJAN SCJ | | [pic] Judgment Jemuri Serjan SCJ (delivering the judgment of the court) 1. Tang Seng Khow joined Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd‚ the appellant company‚ as a Grade 3 clerk on or about 5 January 1956. He was promoted as Grade 1 clerk with effect from 15 October 1976 and at the time of his dismissal he was earning $1
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Supreme court Court