In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1‚ an action was brought by an English company‚ James Morrison & Co Ltd‚ against three defendants‚ J McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading
Chapter 2 The Court System N.B.: TYPE indicates that a question is new‚ modified‚ or unchanged‚ as follows. N A question new to this edition of the Test Bank. + A question modified from the previous edition of the Test Bank. = A question included in the previous edition of the Test Bank. TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS 1. Laws would be meaningless without the courts to interpret and apply them. ANSWER: T PAGES: Section 1 TYPE: + BUSPROG: Analytic AICPA: BB-Legal 2. The federal courts are superior
Premium Trial court Appeal Civil procedure
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal
Question 7 In this question‚ it sets out the following issues in relation to the rescuers and the psychiatric illness caused by the accident‚ including i) whether Samantha and Eric‚ as rescuers and primary victims‚ would be entitled to damages caused by the accident; ii) whether Susan‚ as a secondary victim‚ would satisfied the requirements in order to claim the damages; iii) whether Julie‚ as a primary victim‚ would be entitled to damages caused by the accident. i) whether Samantha and Eric
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Legal Memorandum on Rogers v. Wycoff case From: Jamshid AKHMEDOV To: Therese KEELAGHAN Date: November 5‚ 2012 1) Relevant facts: Defendant: Edward Wycoff‚ 40 Defense attorney: Defendant acts as his own attorney Victims: Julie Rogers‚ 47 and Paul Rogers‚ 47 Plaintiff attorney: Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson Witness (also a Victim): Victims’ son Eric Rogers‚ 20 Witness’ attorney: Tedd W. Cassman Judge: Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John W
Premium United States Jury Civil procedure
Trial Court Decision The trial court for this case granted a temporary injunction on the same day the plaintiffs placed the petition. However‚ the defendant did not comply with the court orders on temporary injunction against its intended discontinuance of the commercial transportation services. Subsequently‚ on December 23‚ 1961‚ the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska moved to court to obtain an order directing that a citation be issued against the defendant to explain why proceedings should
Premium Jury Appeal Civil procedure
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ms. Palsgraf successfully sued the Long Island Railroad Company for compensation for her injuries in the Kings County‚ New York State Circuit Court. The Long Island Railroad Company appealed this decision to the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court‚ Second Department‚ which upheld the lower court’s ruling. The company appealed once more to the New York Court of Appeals‚ which agreed to hear the case. FACTS OF THE CASE The Plaintiff was purchasing a ticket on the railroad
Premium United States Law Civil procedure
5. Issue: The issue is whether Kramer can file suit with Monk’s Café for punitive damages for the burns he suffered on his groin from the coffee he bought at Monk’s Café. Rule: “The jurors say their punitive damages award was based on the fact McDonald’s had received more than 700 prior complaints about the scalding water in its coffee‚ and while many caused injuries‚ the company had done nothing about it” (’HOT COFFEE’). Punitive damages are defined as‚ “damages awarded in cases of serious or
Premium Law Jury Tort
It was noteworthy that Section 6 of the Act corresponds with the old Act but has undergone some changes‚ unlike Section 9‚ which has not undergone any change and does not need any either. EFFECT OF DISABILITY ON LIMITATION PERIOD: Statutes of limitations are designed to help the side of the defendants. A plaintiff‚ however‚ can prevent the dismissal of his action for untimeliness by seeking to toll the statute. When the statute is tolled‚ the running of the time period is suspended until some event
Premium Law Disability Civil procedure
® Welding Procedure Guide An easy to follow guide covering the preparation of welding procedure data sheets © Copyright 2008 CWB Group - Industry Services ® © Copyright CWB Group - Industry Services Revised September 2008 All rights reserved. CWB Group 1-800-844-6790 www.cwbgroup.org ® TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Welding Engineering Standards 3 3.0 Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) 3 4.0 Welding Procedure Data Sheet
Free Welding Arc welding