James Leamon Johnson & Wales University Law 2001 Professor Bertron 01 Feb 2014 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez Briefly explain the opinion. Which of Martinez’s claims were successful and which were not? Why (what was the court’s legal explanation)? In this case‚ Martinez brought forward three claims. First‚ he claimed strict product liability based on defective design of the tire. Martinez also claimed negligence and gross negligence. In their ruling‚ the jury found that the defective design
Premium Jury Tort Law
YOU DECIDE Mgmt. 597: Business Law CASE SUMMERY: Coleman is an employee for Software Inc.; Coleman was a member of the sales division that sold security equipment to businesses and bars. Coleman is traveling the majority for the time; he often spends three months in a row on the road. While on a sales trip to Colorado‚ in March of 2008‚ Coleman stole a ring for his wife. Then‚ Coleman met John at Jimmy’s Poor-Man Bar. While
Premium Termination of employment Business law Law
Task 2 Scenario Andy saw Bilal standing at a bus stop as he drove past. Andy immediately stopped his car and‚ in an aggressive manner‚ ran over to Bilal shouting racist abuse and accusing him (falsely) of being involved in the kidnapping of a child. Andy then punched Bilal‚ knocking him to the ground. Andy then hit Bilal repeatedly with a rubbish bin which Andy ripped from the bus stop. Bilal’s injuries included a fractured cheekbone and jaw‚ and severe cuts to his face from which he lost a lot
Premium Criminal law Legal terms Causality
factor against mitigating circumstances. Even though instructions are given it struck me that most people do not know the true definition of these two terms‚ if I having basic knowledge of these terms get frustrated with the explanation of definition‚ then how does an average juror with no background in law or criminal justice understand these terms . So I decided to full study the true meaning of these factors. The first of these factors is called aggravating factors which means factors that
Premium Criminal law Crime Murder
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M NO._____ OF 2010 IN RE:- NAVJOT SINGH & ANR …PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS …RESPONDENTS INDEX |Sr. No. |Particulars |Dated |Pages |Court fee | |1. |Exemption Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. |08.12.2010 |1-2 | | |2. |Affidavit
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Injunction
TUTORIAL 14 – WRITTEN OPINION TO : ALEC DAWSON FROM : KAREN REBECCA EDWARDS RE : LEGAL EAGLES Summary of Facts I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1‚100‚000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant
Premium Escape Tort Legal terms
Actionable negligence only exists in the context of a legal duty of care owed from one party to another. See Altman v. Aronson‚ 231 Mass. 588‚ 591‚ 121 N.E. 505 (1919) (“Negligence‚ without qualification and in its ordinary sense‚ is the failure of a responsible person‚ either by omission or by action‚ to exercise
Premium Jury United States Appeal
Question Presented Under North Carolina law‚ can a person adversely possess land that is held in co-tenancy when: 1.) The person has not recognized that they are in co-tenancy 2.) The person has had sole possession of the land for nineteen years 3.) The person has paid the property taxes from his personal account 4.) The person has resided on the property and 5.) The person has built a resort as his business on the land? Brief Answer No‚ a person is not likely to be able to claim the land
Premium Property law Iron Man North Carolina
Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT 8th Judicial Region FERNANDO PO CIVIL CASE NO. 06 Plaintiff‚ For: FORCIBLE ENTRY with damages. -versus- Spouses : Dingdong Dante and Marian Dante Defendants. x-----------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM Defendant‚ thru Counsel and unto this Honorable Court‚ respectfully submits this memorandum. I. Facts of the Case 1. On August 16‚2013 Mr. Fernando Po thru his Counsel‚ Atty.Sonia S. Quiero
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Defendant
the defense that the alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation. After due hearing‚ the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff‚ and ordered defendants spouses‚ jointly and severally‚ to pay to the former the sum of P4‚500.00‚ with legal interest thereon‚ plus the amount of P450.00 as reasonable attorneys’ fees‚ and
Premium Appellate court Appeal Trial court