that the scene was soon going to be important for another reason.4 While attending a production of Jersey Boys‚ a man named Andrew Solt did not find the Ed Sullivan scene to be too entertaining. Andrew Solt‚ founder of the television production company named SOFA Entertainment‚ found this scene to
Premium Copyright Fair use Supreme Court of the United States
PKWY DOWNERS GROVE‚ IL 60515-5799 Terms: (Nadel v. Burger King Corp.‚ 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2144) Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Combined Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Project ID: 7 of 8 DOCUMENTS CHRISTOPHER NADEL
Free Product liability
The Private Movie Co.‚ Inc. v. Pamela Lee Anderson et al. 1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes‚ and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included‚ walked out. 2. What is the legal issue? The
Premium Contract Void Gentlemen's agreement
Justin Jethroe Ms. Allen Intro to Corrections April 12‚ 2013 Roper v. Simmons U. S. Supreme Court March 1‚ 2005 543 U.S. 551 Statement of Facts This case in Fenton‚ Missouri involves 17 yrs. old Christopher Simmons born in 1993. Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer were Christopher Simmons friends and accomplices. Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital murder along with Charles Benjamin. The plan was to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering‚ tying up Shirley
Premium Capital punishment Roper v. Simmons Crime
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
said that even though Cindy landed near a flowerbed he did not know there were bricks in the yard. Koppersmith was charged with murder and convicted of reckless manslaughter. On appeal The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back to the trial court because Koppersmith was denied the right to testify about his intentions. He went to retrial and was convicted of reckless manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction to the Alabama Court
Premium Jury Appeal Court
must have a valid interest to protect; (2) the geographical restriction must not be overly broad; and (3) a reasonable time limit must be imposed. Covenants not to compete that arise out of a employment relationship are only upheld by courts in cases where the covenatee provided special training or
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
to obtain regular raises and bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and
Premium Jury Law Tort
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Ann. Section(s) 19-12-101‚ the "criminal attempt" statute‚ the trial court affirmed the juvenile court order and sentenced the girl to the Department of Youth development for an indefinite period. The issue in this case is to determine whether the defendant ’s action in this case constitute a "substantial step" toward the commission of second degree murder under the new statue. The "substantial step" issue has not yet been
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court