Chaiken Case Brief Facts: Chaiken made separate but equal agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barber shop. Under the “partnership” agreement: ~ Chaiken would provide the barber chairs‚ supplies and licenses. Strazella and Spitzer provide tools of the trade. ~ Gross returns were to be divided on a percentage basis between all three men. ~ Chaiken will decide all matters of the partnership policy. ~Stated hours of work and holidays. ~Chaiken holds and distributes all receipts
Premium Employment Corporation Profit
Q1 Advise Brad as to his rights against the University of Kew Brad could sue the University of Kew in negligence‚ contract and misleading.少写了consumer contract Action against University of Kew in negligence Pure economic loss In this case‚ Brad suffered pure economic loss. Brad completed the course but finally did not become either a CPA or CA on the basis of his Doctor of Accountancy course. Besides‚ he could have earned $300‚000 a year as a management consultant. What is worse‚ he went to
Premium Tort Contract Reasonable person
Case Brief A.4 GNAZZO v. G.D. SEARLE & CO. 973 F.2d 136 (1992) U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit Pierce‚ Circuit Judge Facts: On November 11‚ 1974‚ Gnazzo had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted in her uterus for contraceptive purposes. The IUD was developed‚ marketed and sold by G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). When Gnazzo’s deposition was taken‚ she stated that her doctor had informed her that “the insertion would hurt‚ but not for long‚” and that she “would have uncomfortable and probably
Premium Civil procedure Causality Complaint
perceived it. 3) There are various records rules; such as public records which are marriage‚ death‚ and birth if reported to legal office‚ observations made while on public duty like how many times an officer has had disciplinary actions against him or her while on duty. Cases filed in courts prior
Premium Crime Law Police
exercised over π was mandated by local regulations and so is not considered in determining ER/EE control. ISSUE II: Does their K disclaiming any ER/EE relationship stop any claim by π otherwise? NO. - It is not for the parties to determine their legal relationship. RATIONAL: While it is to be considered‚ it is of lesser importance than the other factors and does not preclude π from making claim. JUDGEMENT: Affirmed by DCOA‚ 1st Dist. ------------------------------------------- Bowdoin
Premium The Work Judgment Control
he lacked legal standing because he was divorced from Sandra Banning‚ the mother of his daughter‚ and that he did not have legal custody of his daughter. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling‚ deciding that Newdow did have holding as a parent to sue and that the school district’s policy violated the establishment clause. The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court‚ which granted review. Issue: Does Michael A. Newdow‚ have legal standing
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Pledge of Allegiance
Legal Brief: Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders Facts: • Pennsylvania State Police hired Nancy Drew Suders as a police communications operator. • Suder’s supervisors were Sergeant Eric D. Easton‚ Patrol Corporal William D. Baker‚ and Corporal Eric B. Prendergast. • Suders was subject to sexual harassment from all three of her supervisors during the term of her employment. • Easton would mention the subject of people having sex with animals each time Suders entered the office. • Easton told
Premium Employment Termination of employment Supreme Court of the United States
offer of $42‚500 for the real estate and $250 for a dinner bell and flower pots. Smith signed the agreement but Behee notified an agent of Smith that he had withdrawn the offer before he received notice of the acceptance. Hendricks brought an interpleader action against Behee and Smith and Behee filed a cross claim against Smith. The court awarded $997.50 to Hendricks and the balance to Behee. Smith appealed. In the case of Stevenson Jaques & Co v McLean (1880) states that A "mere inquiry" not a counter-offer
Premium Contract Contract law Offer and acceptance
requiring disclosure potential discrimination by requiring disclosure sexual orientation‚ sex‚ and about family life? III. Law used The court uses section 230 of the CDA to see if Roommates.com‚ LLC has immunity. The court uses this law to see if this case applies to RHA and state real estate discrimination law. IV. Reasoning Roommate.com‚ LLC is classified under 230 as an “information content provider” because the website made the questions‚ force users to answer them in order to use the website
Premium Discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1968 Sexual orientation
authority to accept the process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner and the return of service does not show a valid manner of service. At last‚ the appellate court of Texas reverse the trial court’s default judgment and remand this case for further proceedings. Issues: (a) Did the return of service shows that process was delivered to someone other than the one named in the citation? (b) Did JoAnn Kocerek has the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas
Premium Civil procedure Service of process Complaint