English 102.644 December 13‚2013 The case District of Columbia V. Heller (2008) settled questions surrounded the Second Amendment and gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation banning the registration of handguns‚ requiring licenses for all pistols mandating that all legal firearms be kept unloaded‚ disassembled or on a trigger lock and could only be obtained with a license issued by the Chief of police. 1 A D.C. special policeman‚ Heller‚ applied to register his handgun and
Premium Supreme Court of the United States District of Columbia v. Heller United States Constitution
Case analysis: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11; [2009] AC 874; AER 205 The claimant of this case was the widow and daughter of Mr Drummond. They brought a claim against the council for damages in negligence‚ the essential legal complaint was that the local authority had failed to warn the deceased about the meeting before‚ and that they acted in a way that was incompatible with his right to life‚ under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Session
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al‚ 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Facts: Petitioner was John F. Tinker‚ Mary Beth Tinker‚ and Christopher Eckhardt‚ high school students in Des Moines‚ Iowa. In December 1964 several students were joined in protesting the Vietnam War. The form of protest was to wear a black armband for two weeks. When protesters arrived at school they were told to remove the arm bands or be suspended. Students took the suspension and did not return to
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
CASE ANALYSIS: Case: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 Introduction: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Ltd is one of the most leading cases in the law of contracts under common law. Known for both its academic importance and its contribution in the development of the laws relating unilateral contracts‚ it is still binding on lower courts in England and Wales‚ and is still cited by judges in their judgements. This research paper aims to critically examine and analyze the
Premium Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Invitation to treat
Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United States v. Dentsply International‚ Inc.‚ Court: United States of Appeals‚ Third Circuit. Date: Argued September 21‚ 2004. February 24‚ 2005 Citation: 399 F.3d 181 Facts: This is an antitrust case that the defendant- Dentsply international‚ Inc.‚ is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates
Premium United States Competition law Competition
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 1 CASE LAW ON CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL (1893) Issue 1. Was the advertisement by Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. a contract with the whole world? 2. Was the advertisement by Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.‚ rewarding 100 pounds to any person who uses the product (smoke ball) as directed for a given period and still get contracted to influenza‚ colds or other diseases a "mere puff"/ “nudum pactum” ? Analysis From my
Premium Invitation to treat Contract Contract law
How did the ruling of Brown v.s. Board of Education impact the american education system and it’s students? After slavery was abolished racism was still very much alive but segregation was a new way to discriminate against African Americans. As a result the CIvil Rights Movement began and it’s goal was to gain equal rights. Some had conformed to the idea of being “separate but equal” while others felt it was just another way of discrimination. The ruling Brown v.s. Board of Education found it was
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
through performing the stated conditions. By fulfilling the required conditions‚ the person becomes an offeree and is therefore eligible to claim the reward. The above principle of law regarding an offer made to the entire world is established in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256. In this case‚ the newspaper advert by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company stated the reward of £100 for anyone who contracted flu after using the product as instructed. On top of it the
Premium Invitation to treat Newspaper Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
1/23/2015 BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. | Islamicbanker’s Weblog Islamicbanker’s Weblog Just another WordPress.com weblog BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION [1966] 1 QB 742‚ [1965] 3 All ER 81‚ [1965] 3 WLR 863‚ [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218‚ 8 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 424 HEARING-DATES: 31 May‚ 1‚ 25 June 1965 25 June 1965 CATCHWORDS: Bank — Cheque — Condition restricting use — New cheque book on bank’s change to computer mechanisation
Premium Bank Cheque Contract
Tinker v. Des Moines is a court case that happened in 1969 and was a dispute about wearing armbands to school for a protest against the Vietnam war. The principals did not like the idea of the protest and decided to shut it down by banning all armbands. The students weren’t going to go down without a fight and wore them anyway. This case all started with a meeting at Christopher Echardt’s house to do a silent protest of the Vietnam war. The “Tinker kids” decided the wear two-inch-wide black armbands
Premium Supreme Court of the United States High school First Amendment to the United States Constitution