HELMER et al. v. RUMARSON TECHNOLOGIES‚ INC. (two cases) Court of Appeals of Georgia‚ 2000. 245 Ga. App. 598‚ 538 S.E.2d 504 FACTS Rumarson Technologies‚ Inc. (RTI) sued Robert and Percy Helmer to collect from them personally $24‚965 owed to it by Event Marketing‚ Inc. (EMI) when EMI’s check to pay RTI bounced. Robert and Percy Helmer were authorized signatories on EMI’s corporate account‚ and they signed the check. RTI argued that as signatories they could be held personally liable. The lower
Premium Appeal Cheque Court
BRIEFING A CASE EXAMPLE Student Name: Class: Case Number: PATTERSON V. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164 (1989) FACTS: Patterson‚ a black female‚ worked for the McLean Credit Union as a teller and file coordinator for ten years. Patterson alleges that when she was first interviewed for her job‚ the supervisor‚ who later became the president of McLean Credit Union‚ told her that she would be working with all white women and they probably would not like working with her because she
Premium United States Race Black people
Moore v. Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.‚ 76 Ark. App. 397‚ 65 S.W. 3d 490 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) FACTS: Appellee (Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.)‚ who is in the business of setting up cigarette product displays‚ contracted to hire appellant (Moore) in 2001 to work at its Fort Smith office. Upon accepting employment‚ appellant signed an employment contract‚ a “Service work for Hire Agreement” with appellee that contained a non-compete agreement – in which appellant agreed that for one year following the
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
MARYLAND v. GARRISON 480 U.S. 79 (1987) FACTS: The Baltimore City Police department obtained a warrant to search the home of Lawrence McWebb located “third floor of 2036 Park Avenue” for controlled substances and related paraphernalia. The police believed that there was only one apartment on the third floor‚ which in fact there were actually 2; one belonging to Garrison (defendant) and McWebb‚ the person listed on the warrant. Upon entering and searching the apartment‚ officers found drugs and
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Constable Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Salinas V. Texas 570 U.S. 1 (2013) Facts: Two brothers were shot and killed in their home. Police recovered shotgun shells that led them to investigate the petitioner. The petitioner handed over his gun and agreed to go to the police station for questioning. The petitioner answered all of the questions the police had‚ but when it came to the question about the shells matching the petitioner’s gun he went silent. So the police asked a few more questions to which the petitioner answered.
Premium Question Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
Mazzagati v. Everingham‚ 512 Pa. 266 (1986). Facts: An automobile driven by Defendant fatally struck Plaintiff’s daughter. At the time of the accident‚ Plaintiff received a telephone call immediately after the collision at work informing her that her daughter had been involved in an automobile accident. Plaintiff arrived at the scene of the accident a few minutes later. Procedural Posture: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the nature of a Demurrer granted by the Montgomery County
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff
negligence claim with this case failed on the reason that the Touche(defendant) owed no duty of care to Ultramares (plaintiff) because Ultramares was not a primary beneficiary of Touche’s professional audit. The court found that Touche was guilty of ordinary negligence but not fraud. Over the years the rule of Ultramares has been expanded in some cases to the point that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares Corp. v Touche is the leading case regarding the application
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
Republic of Austria v. Altmann 124 S.Ct. 2240 FACTS: In 1998 it evidence was discovered that certain works in the Austrian Gallery archives in Vienna‚ Austria had not been obtained from their rightful owners. These works were believed to have been seized by the Nazis or expropriated by the Austrian Republic after World War II. Prior to the Nazi invasion of Austria in 1938‚ the paintings had hung in the Vienna home of Maria Altmann’s uncle‚ Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Mrs. Altmann claims ownership
Premium Austria Germany House of Habsburg
Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract