City Council) owe a duty of care to the particular plaintiffs in the circumstances? Prior cases really only dealt with the ‘builders’ being responsible for the defect in the construction of a particular structure. In recent cases‚ Sunset Terraces‚ it was outlined that Councils do in fact owe a ‘Duty of Care’ thus the rule in Bowen v Paramount Builders Ltd crafted by Richmond P can be applied to our current case. Consequently‚ when the DCC selected a certifier who negligently approved unsound plans
Premium Tort
WILLIAMS V THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] 248 CLR 156 I INTRODUCTION Williams v The Commonwealth is an excellent example of a significant turning point in Australian Constitutional history. It challenged Executive power‚ the capacity the Commonwealth had to spend public money‚ and its’ power to enter into contracts without the authorisation of Parliament . The breadth of Executive power is covered under s61 of the Constitution‚ and describes activities which the executive can carry out . The Williams
Premium
My first take-away came reading the Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol Case. While I was reading this case‚ I was sure that Mr. Poore had established a claim under GINA since he was terminated three days after he disclosed his wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I assumed he was covered under GINA because it is unlawful to discharge an employee because of the genetic tests of an individual’s family members. This was an important take-away for me because it helped me understand what constitutes
Premium Management Employment Ethics
that his termination was a combination of legitimate reasons for example reducing costs with illegitimate reasons incapacity under a mixed motives theory. Question 3: Falstaff does not meet the requirements to make the claim. According to Grindle v. Watkins‚ courts use the McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate an ADA claim.
Premium Employment Management Law
Legal Brief: Doe v. Withers Liability within the Educational System EDED 6312 School Law Dr. Jones Dallas Baptist University Spring 2012 Name of Case: Doe v. Withers Civil Action Number: 92-C-92 Subject: Liability The Facts: This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County‚ when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended
Premium Special education Teacher Education
two court cases were being held in the supreme court about cruel and unusual punishment. Ingraham Vs. Wright (1977) and Gregg Vs. Georgia (1976). I choose to compare these because they both favored common good instead of individual rights and had a lot of similar aspects of their trials. During these Supreme Court cases Gregg Vs. Georgia showed more balance between the promoting the common good and protecting the individual rights than Ingraham Vs. Wright showed in 1977. In the court case of Ingraham
Premium Capital punishment Murder Supreme Court of the United States
Sheppard v. Maxwell‚ was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant’s right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular‚ the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife‚ of which he was convicted‚ because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive‚ pervasive‚ and
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Crime
The case of Fare v. Michael concentrates on what the Miranda case law did for an adults 5th Amendment rights‚ but now deals with a juvenile and an added element (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The defendant in this case was 16 years old and had been charged with murder (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The juvenile defendant did not ask for an attorney‚ but did ask for his probation officer as he was currently on probation (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The police denied his request to have his probation officer contacted
Premium Law Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution
Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) involved free speech and human cadavers‚ two topics that naturally incite curiosity. The Mortuary Science Program at the University of Minnesota is a Bachelor of Science program for upperclass undergraduate students. The program’s mission is to prepare students to become licensed funeral directors and morticians. The anatomy course of Mortuary Science Program relies on the generosity of individuals who choose to donate their bodies to science after they have
Premium University Facebook Social media
Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court of the United States 129 S. Ct. 2658; 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009) April 22‚2009‚ Argued June 29‚ 2009‚ Decided This 2009 Supreme Court decision was a result of alleged racial discrimination with regard to internal promotions of nineteen New Haven‚ Connecticut firefighters. New Haven city officials invalidated test results when no Blacks scored high enough to meet the minimum score necessary to be eligible for promotion. Therefore‚ the White and Hispanic candidates
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution