Page 1 Case Name: Saelman v. Hill Between Jacques Saelman and William Wuerch‚ plaintiffs‚ and Dennis Wayne Hill and Sylvia Ann Hill‚ defendants [2004] O.J. No. 2122 [2004] O.T.C. 440 20 R.P.R. (4th) 118 2004 CanLII 9176 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 367 Court File No. 13526/00 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Kingston‚ Ontario Hackland J. Heard: April 5-8 and 13-16‚ 2004. Judgment: May 20‚ 2004. (47 paras.) Damages -- For torts -- Affecting property -- Real property -- Nuisance -- Inconvenience -Psychological
Premium Tort Law Pleading
Flagiello Case Brief Type of Court - Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Facts of the Case - Mrs. Flagiello was injured due to negligence while staying at the hospital - Mrs. Flagiello and her husband want compensation for time spent in hospital‚ loss of potential earnings‚ and added medical expense - Hospital was a charitable organization Legal Issues in the Case - Does charity grant the hospital immunity from such cases? - What was lost during the extra time spent in the hospital? - Was
Premium Tort Tort law Law
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
References: Chapman v Mid-Essex Hospital Services [2001] All ER (D) 239 Chappel v Hart (1999) Lloyds Law Reports 223
Premium Physician
Facts: In the Case of Blackshades v. the United States‚ defendant Alex Yucel‚ a citizen of Sweden‚ was charged with computer hacking using the malware‚ “RAT‚” under his company called Blackshades. Since he is the founder of the Blackshades‚ “Rat” had sold the malicious software to 6‚000 customers. Blackshades is a malware which includes a remote tool‚ called “RAT.” With the malware‚ it enables it to control the victims’ computers. According to the plaintiff‚ the federal government‚ Blackshades
Premium Computer security Security Computer
It is unquestionable that Scarlett is the primary victim of the case‚ as Henry had expressed his intention of causing harm to her by threatening her with violence for a few months. In other words‚ it would be fair to say that Henry’s action was reasonably foreseeable as it was obvious that any sort of torment over an extended period of time would have negative psychological impact on a person. Although Scarlett did not suffer any physical injury‚ the imminent threats she perceived from Henry retriggered
Premium English-language films Jury Trial
Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse (1987) case. In this particular case‚ a female employee of a management firm filed a claim of sex discrimination against her employer. The plaintiff alleged that she was denied partnership with the company for acting “too masculine.” The employer reportedly informed the plaintiff that she may receive reconsideration the following year and she should focus on “walking‚ talking‚ and dressing more feminine” to progress her chances of becoming a partner (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse
Premium Gender Discrimination Employment
Alternative Dispute Resolution The case selected is a construction defect case‚ Haynes v. Adair Homes‚ Inc. The case was lastly filed in the Court of Appeals of The State of Oregon. Hynes v. Adair Homes was initially filed in the Clackamas County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs Paul and Renee Haynes contracted with the defendant Adair Homes‚ Inc. for the construction of their home. After completion of the house‚ they discovered extensive water in the underfloor crawlspace. Ponding water in the crawlspace
Premium Appeal United States Law
Case Brief Funk vs. United States Supreme Court of the United States 290 U.S. 371‚ 54 S. Ct. 212 (1933) Facts: Funk was tried twice and convicted both times in Federal District Court for conspiracy to violate the prohibition law. In the first appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the decision of the Federal District Court was reversed due to issues not applicable here. 46 F.2d 417. In both trials the defendant called upon his wife to testify on his behalf and she was excluded
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States
Georgia v. Troy Davis Georgia v. Troy Davis Two days following Davis’s conviction on charges of the murder of Officer Mark MacPhail‚ jury recommended the death penalty and Davis was sentenced to death. Officer MacPhail’s family wasn’t allowed to testify but Davis comment with; “Spare my life‚ just give me a second chance. That’s all I ask. I was convicted for offenses that I didn’t commit.” If the victim was still alive to testify‚ he could have confirmed Davis’s statement or better yet identify
Premium Capital punishment Jury Crime