Case Legal Brief Case: Mullins V. Parkview Hospital (2007) Facts: At a teaching hospital‚ Mullins who is the plaintiff marked or ticked the section of approval form that consented to “the presence of healthcare learners”. She was assured by the attending Anaesthesiologist that she would handle the anaesthesia. However‚ when Mullins was unconscious during the surgery‚ a student (VanHoey) was allowed by the Anaesthesiologist to perform intubation. Mullins’ oesophagus was lacerated by VanHoey as
Premium United States Appeal Tort
1. Case 9-1: Facebook v. Winklevosses The settlement agreement is enforceable. Based on the four necessary conditions on constructing a valid (bilateral contract in this case) contract: (1) Agreement: Winklevosses agreed that he has “no further right to assert against Facebook” and “no further claims against Facebook and its related parties” in exchange for cash and Facebook stock from Zuckerberg (promise for a promise); (2) Consideration: What Zuckerberg offered was a legal value in exchange for
Premium Contract Contract law Offer and acceptance
In the legal case (Unites States v Leon) On August 1981‚ police in Burbank received intel from an informant that Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez were selling narcotics from their personal residence. Police began surveillance of their home without a warrant and identified suspects Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon. Based on their investigation and information obtained from another informant‚ a warrant was obtained. A search of the residence was conducted‚ and large amounts of drug paraphernalia
Premium
In the Appellate Court of Illinois Second District PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS‚ ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee‚ ) Appeal from the ) Nineteenth Judicial ) Circuit Court ) v. ) Case. No. 92 CF 2751 ) JUAN A. RIVERA‚ JR.‚ ) Hon. Christopher C. Starck ) Judge Presiding. Defendant-Appellant. ) ________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Premium Jury Supreme Court of the United States United States
In the case of Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning‚ Inc. Inland Metals did have an express warranty with the humidifier it sold to Keller. According to NOLO (2015) “an express warranty is a verbal or written statement that guarantees that a product is of a certain quality or will work in a certain way or for a certain amount of time.” In the case of Keller v. Inland Metal‚ Inland Metals provided both verbal and written statements about the quality of the humidifier they sold the
Premium Management Employment Law
Roberts v Colorado State is a case based on former members of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team ("ROBERTS v. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | Leagle.com‚" n.d.). During the summer of the 1992‚ CSU experienced many financial burdens as their state aid was taken away and many beneficiaries bailed out. This put the school in a deficit‚ causing them to drop many of their sports teams. One of which was the women’s softball team. The players found this to be wrong because they were
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
In Canada‚ we are privileged to have a lot of rights that benefit us. In the movie‚ V for Vendetta they are not as fortunate as we are. There are many examples to prove that they didn’t have many rights as we do. To begin with‚ we have equality rights; everyone gets treated the same. Homosexuality is allowed and gets treated fairly. In the movie‚ those that were a part of the gay/lesbian community were sent to concentration camps or jails. When they were taken there‚ the people tortured them
Premium Human rights V for Vendetta United Kingdom
After reviewing the United States v. Parks case‚ I believe that Parks should have been charged with a crime. The responsible corporate officer doctrine states that even if the corporate officer did not know about the crime or engage in the crime then the court can still find the officer criminally liable (Kubasek‚ 2017 p. 161). In this case‚ Parks received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration and still failed to correct the unsanitary conditions. Parks should be convicted even
Premium Crime Automobile Ford Motor Company
EEOC v. Federal Express (2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1260 [4th Cir.]) Facts: FedEx appealed a case awarding a disabled employee‚ Ronald Lockhart‚ with compensatory and punitive damages. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the employer must be acting with malice for punitive damages to be awarded; in addition‚ there was evidence that questioned if punitive damages were warranted. FedEx claimed that Lockhart’s supervisors failed to accommodate him at work‚ not FedEx‚ and they did engage in a
Premium United States Law Appeal
The People of the State of New York V. Donald L. McCray Nature of the Case: Appeal upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Concise Rule of Law: Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 which permits persons who appear to be mentally ill and acting in a manner that threatens safety of self or others to be taken into custody. The Penal Law § 120.08 imposes strict liability with respect to the serious injury aspect
Premium Crime Law Mental disorder