THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
I. Summary The V-22 Osprey is an aircraft that is currently used in the military. Its unique design of a tilt rotor system has proven to be useful in different mission in the military. However‚ the Congressional Research Service (2009) in their study has said that this helicopter has multiple aerodynamic issues. During the service of this aircraft demonstrated mechanical issues that affected the elements of aerodynamic flight and emergencies situations that caused the V-22 program in constant upgrades
Premium Management Aircraft Unmanned aerial vehicle
for trespass to her bedroom and communal areas: Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse (1937) 56 CLR 605 ENTERING BEDROOM‚ PLACING PLANTS ON FLOOR Presumably‚ Donald intended (Nickells v Melbourne Corporation (1938) 59 CLR 219) the direct interferences (Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182 (‘Southport’)) of entering Alexis’s bedroom and placing plants on the floor. Donald interfered by entering Alexis’s room without authority (Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 (‘Plenty’)) as Alexis revoked
Premium Law Tort Property
Lopez V. Orosa‚ Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc. G.R. No. L-10817-18 Facts: Enrique Lopez‚ doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castillo Sawmill‚ was invited by Vicente Orosa‚ Jr. to make an investment in the theatre business namely Plaza Theatre Inc. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest‚ however agreed to supply lumber necessary for the construction of the theatre with the assurance that Orosa would be personally liable for any account that the said construction might incur. Lopez was
Free Property Real estate Legal terms
Case: M.Caratan V. Commissioner (71-1 USTC ¶9353) ISSUE: whether the employee-taxpayers were entitled to exclude from their gross incomes the value of lodging furnished to them by their employer‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc.‚ under section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. FACTS: The company‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc‚had a policy‚ established by the taxpayers in their capacity as corporate officers and directors‚ that required supervisory and management personnel to reside on the farm. Company-owned lodging
Premium Corporation Taxation in the United States Tax
Cipla v Roche – Generics Industry Rejoices! For the last two years‚ the Delhi High Court has been the battle ground for a pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla over Roche’s patent for the anticancer drug ‘erlotinib’‚ sold by Roche as ’Tarceva’. On 24 April 2009‚ the Division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing‚ offering for sale‚ selling and exporting its generic version of ‘erlotinib’
Premium Patent application Patent Patentability
The doctor believes that providing treatment for Martin as soon as possible is best thing to do since the doctor catches the bladder cancer early before it spreads to other body parts‚ and cause more damage. As soon as Martin agrees and the doctor starts the procedure‚ the better chance Martin has of living a full life. Martin refuse to listen to anything the doctor and other health care team have to say. He clearly made his mind that the doctor has no idea what he is talking about and denying treatment
Premium Patient Physician Medicine
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
U.S. Supreme Court TEXAS v. JOHNSON‚ 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397 Citation: Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. Date Decided: June 21‚ 1989 Facts of case: At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas‚ Texas‚ Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution