Robinette Facts: Defendant was speeding 30 miles over the speed limit in a construction zone. A police officer stopped him‚ asked for the Defendant’s driver’s license which he produced. The officer ran a computer check which showed that the Def. didn’t have any previous violations. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the car‚ turned on his video camera mounted on the officer’s vehicle and verbally warned the defendant for speeding‚ and then returned his license. After returning his license
Premium Law Police Supreme Court of the United States
Law Case Analysis According to the law case EEOC v. FREEMAN‚ the EEOC filed a law suit against Freeman and alleged the company’s hiring policy which includes criminal background and credit history checks‚ has a disparate impact on African-American‚ Hispanic‚ and male applicants. And the material fact of this case is whether Defendant’s hiring criteria of conducting criminal background and credit history checks is consistent with business necessity. Since the Defendant was charged by the EEOC with
Premium Law Employment United States
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
Case Brief: Zuckerman v. Antenucci Sophia Haberman LAW/531 December 01‚ 2010 Dr. Maurice Rosano Case Study: Zuckerman v. Antenucci Partnership liability tort can take place when a partner or all partners acting on partnership business causes injury to a third person. Cause of this tort could be a negligent act‚ a breach of trust‚ breach of fiduciary duty‚ defamation‚ fraud‚ or another intentional tort (Cheeseman‚ 2010‚ p. 538). Under the Uniform Partnership Act‚ partners are jointly
Premium Partnership Tort law Tort
Case Brief 1. CASE: Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 2. FACTS: A West Virginia jury issued a verdict against respondents (“Massey”) in the amount of $50 million. After the verdict‚ knowing that the West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal‚ Blankenship‚ the chairman‚ CEO and president of Massey contributed $3 million to help Benjamin run for office in that court in West Virginia’s 2004 judicial election. Benjamin won the election in a close
Premium Jury United States Supreme Court of the United States
James Donalds – Case Brief Practice R. v. Sparrow‚ [1990] 1 SCR 1075 Facts: Sparrow was charged under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with the offence of fishing with a drift net longer than permitted by the terms of the Indian Food Fishing License. Sparrow admitted to committing the act‚ but claimed that he has the aboriginal right to fish under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act. Therefore‚ the Act is inconsistent with s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act‚ 1982 and is invalid. He was unsuccessful
Premium Law United Kingdom United States
estimate the value of the card. The expert said that even in a tough economy the card would likely bring $80‚000 at public auction. Mrs. Covington brings an equitable action to rescind the contract‚ get her card back and return the $1 to Michael. Case: Elizabeth Covington vs. Michael Ferrell (2010) Facts: Elizabeth Covington versus Michael Ferrell. Plaintiff: Elizabeth Covington brings an equitable action movement to court against Michael Ferrell to receive legal relief for Michael Ferrell having
Premium Baseball
Case Brief: Sutter v. Hutchings Case Name‚ Citation & Court: Sutter v. Hutchings‚ 254 Ga. 194‚ 327 S.E.2d 717‚ Georgia Supreme Court‚ decided 1985. Parties & Procedural History: Trial Court level: Plaintiff Sutter sues Defendant Hutchings. Defendant filed summary judgment motion‚ and court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. First appeal: Ga. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals again to Ga. Supreme Court. Facts: Mrs
Premium Appeal Law Court
Patrick Haines JLC 101 Prof. Edelson 9/11/14 Hawkins v McGee case brief Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee‚ 84 N.H. 114‚ 146 A. 641.(1929) Facts: Mr. Hawkins‚ the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee‚the defendant‚ in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
People v. Rangel (2012) : Case Brief Issue: When a search warrant is issued on the grounds of proving someone to be a part of gang activity‚ is it logical to be able to search their personal items such as a phone? Facts: San Mateo police believed that supposed gang member Eric Rangel was responsible for the felony assault that took place in a local park and also that it was a gang-related crime. As a result police obtained a search warrant of Rangel’s home on the grounds of proving “gang indicia”
Premium Crime Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law