reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
EMTALA The article I chose to discuss was a court case involving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). A Dickinson County hospital violated EMTALA for failing to provide emergency care for a patient who was transferred to a different hospital without being completely stable enough for transfer. In 1985‚ Congress passed the law of “Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act” also known as (EMTALA) to ensure public access and treatment to emergency services regardless of race
Premium Emergency medical services Medicine Hospital
Fabiani Case Introduction The Antoine Fabiani case is an international case which involved the Government of Venezuela and the government of France where the two governments agreed to get an arbitrator to put to rest on the case of M. Antonio Fabiani in the most just manner and without bias. This shows that law has no barriers and no matter how powerful in terms of government or inferior‚ in this case Fabiani‚ the law will always be just provided the best means are pursued. In this case both the
Premium Law Jurisdiction Switzerland
CASE United States v. Nixon‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) FACTS A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Nixon’s White House staff members and political supporters of the President for violation of federal statutes in the Watergate affair‚. The President on the other hand was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure - Rule 17 for a subpoena duces tecum‚ a court summons ordering the President
Premium Richard Nixon Watergate scandal President of the United States
Act shall be known as "The Initiative and Referendum Act." Section 2. Statement of Policy. — The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose‚ enact‚ approve or reject‚ in whole or in part‚ the Constitution‚ laws‚ ordinances‚ or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed‚ recognized and guaranteed. Section 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act‚ the following terms shall mean:
Premium United States Constitution
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
2.1 (a) In the decision of District Court of New South Wales‚ Appellant (Ms Derrick) owed the Respondent (Rosannie Cheung) a duty of care‚ as she was driving at such a speed that it was beyond her ability to stop the car in time and notice that a child which suddenly darted from one of the parked cars. In addition‚ nearby shops and houses combined with the date‚ Saturday morning shortly before Christmas‚ should have alerted Ms Derrick that small children might be playing around‚ so she needed to
Premium Law Tort Negligence
Case – British Railways board Vs Herrington Relevance - Trespasser duty of care - Common humanity - Occupiers liability act 1984 Facts - Railway line operated by BRB ran through property open to public - Fences were in poor repair - 1965 children seen on line - Child severely injured when he stepped on line after passing through broken fence - Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence Ruling - House of lords held over trespassers‚ a duty to take steps as common humanity to avert
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Chapter 2 Donoghue v Stevenson p.45 Donoghue found a snail in the ginger beer and got shocked. She sued Stevenson‚ the manufacture. Manufacturer owed a duty of care to customers. Neighbour test.Grant v Australian Knitting Mills p.48 Dr Grant suffered dermatitis because of the sulphites on the surface of the underwear manufactured by AKM. AKM owed a duty of care in the production of the underwear not to cause injury to Grant. McPhersons v Eaton p.49 Eaton died from the exposure to asbestos
Premium Contract Tort
ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution