Circuit Court of the State of Oregon Multnomah County Roy Keane ) Plaintiff ) Roy Keane’s vs. ) First Amended ) Complaint Bryce Caldwell ) Defendant ) Assault‚ Battery‚ and Intentional ) Infliction of Emotional Distress ) ) ) Not Subject to Mandatory ) Arbitration Plaintiff‚ Roy Keane by his attorney‚ Walter Meier files his Complaint against defendants as follows: Claim 1 – Assault 1. Plaintiff
Premium Suffering Legal terms Psychology
Many babies are abandoned by parents who avoid their responsibilities. It could be have really serious problems‚ but it is irresponsible behavior. In addition‚ some parents abandon the babies outside. It is cruel behavior. We should not ignore this problem. There are three solutions: controlling illegal abandonment‚ allowing abortion legally‚ and educating people to use contraception. Controlling illegal abandonment is a good way to prevent babies from being abandoned. The police should
Premium Psychology Pregnancy Education
Reas vs Relacion (AM no. P-05-2095‚ February 9‚ 2011) Facts: Petitioner‚ Benigno B. Reas files a complaint against Respondent‚ Carlos M. Relacion with gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complainant alleged that the respondent harassed a certain cooperative to a point of violence just to release his own salary check. Relacion did not return the check to the Cooperative despite repetitive demands; that when the COC confronted Relacion‚ he mauled him when he refused Relacion’s offer to pay
Premium Legal terms
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION‚ PUNJAB SCO NO. 32-33-34‚ SECTOR 17-C‚ CHANDIGARH Mrs. Naveen‚ W/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar Abrol‚ R/o H. No. 95‚ Shingari Gali Chhota‚ Bazar Qadian‚ Tehsil – Batala‚ Distt. Gurdaspur … Complainant Versus Public Information Officer‚ O/o Senior Superintendent of Police‚ Batala‚ Distt. Gurdaspur. …Respondent Complaint Case no- 2799/2013 ORDER Present : Representative‚ Mr. Aman Abrol‚ for the complainant. Mr. Parkash Singh
Premium Punjab Appeal Punjabi language
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
FACTS OF THE CASE The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner‚ M/s. KVR Construction (Assessee) is a construction/development organization rendering services/administrations under classification of "Development of Residential Complex Service" and are paying the Service Tax as per Finance Act‚ 1994. They are construct some buildings for Shri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Seva Trust by virtue of an agreement dated 7-12-2004: (a) Medical college (b) AIMS Hospital (c) SJBIT Engineering college (d) SJBIT
Premium Money Money Tax refund
The rule in Ryland’s v Fletcher was established in the case Rylands v Fletcher [1868]‚ decided by Blackburn J. In effect‚ it is a tort of strict liability “imposed upon a landowner who collects certain things on his land – a duty insurance against harm caused by their escape regardless of the owner’s fault”. The tort under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is described as one of strict liability. This means that liability may be imposed on a party without finding of fault such as negligence. The plaintiff
Premium Tort Tort Complaint
Citation: Nasc Services‚ Inc v. Jervis 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40502 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. N.J. 2008) Parties: * Plaintiff – Nasc Services and Russell * Defendant – Jervis‚ Moses‚ Jones‚ Barrow‚ Moffett‚ and Nee * Appellant – N/A * Appellee– N/A History: The plaintiff motioned against the defendants under the notion that they violated a covenant in their employee contracts. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario
Premium Legal terms Defendant Plaintiff
George Garton will likely be liable for battery because he intentionally blew smoke in Martin Trout’s face. In general‚ battery is defined as touching with the intent to harmfully or offensively contact another person. In this case‚ Mr. Garton’s actions were purposeful and showed intent. Also‚ Mr. Garton’s actions were offensive because smoke is an unpleasant substance. Therefore‚ the issue here is whether blowing smoke in Mr. Trout’s face is considered touching. Mr. Garton’s actions will likely
Premium Legal terms Release
John 7:53-8:11 is one of the most controversial verses in the Bible and the reason is not even what the text says. The most controversial issue about this pericope is whether or not this verse actually belongs in the Bible or not. The reason why this is even a debate is because the writing style does not match the rest of the book. While this is the biggest controversy on this passage I will discuss no more about it‚ and focus more on the minor controversies that get little attention. These issues
Premium Controversy Controversies Legal terms