Mazzagati v. Everingham‚ 512 Pa. 266 (1986). Facts: An automobile driven by Defendant fatally struck Plaintiff’s daughter. At the time of the accident‚ Plaintiff received a telephone call immediately after the collision at work informing her that her daughter had been involved in an automobile accident. Plaintiff arrived at the scene of the accident a few minutes later. Procedural Posture: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the nature of a Demurrer granted by the Montgomery County
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff
negligence claim with this case failed on the reason that the Touche(defendant) owed no duty of care to Ultramares (plaintiff) because Ultramares was not a primary beneficiary of Touche’s professional audit. The court found that Touche was guilty of ordinary negligence but not fraud. Over the years the rule of Ultramares has been expanded in some cases to the point that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares Corp. v Touche is the leading case regarding the application
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
Republic of Austria v. Altmann 124 S.Ct. 2240 FACTS: In 1998 it evidence was discovered that certain works in the Austrian Gallery archives in Vienna‚ Austria had not been obtained from their rightful owners. These works were believed to have been seized by the Nazis or expropriated by the Austrian Republic after World War II. Prior to the Nazi invasion of Austria in 1938‚ the paintings had hung in the Vienna home of Maria Altmann’s uncle‚ Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Mrs. Altmann claims ownership
Premium Austria Germany House of Habsburg
Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract
Maryland v. Shatzer‚ 559 U.S. 98 (2010) FACTS: In August of 2003 Detective Shane Blankenship‚ a social worker‚ was assigned to investigate and interview Michael Shatzer about claims that Shatzer had sexually abused his three year old son. At the time of the investigation Shatzer was incarcerated at Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown for an unrelated child-sexual abuse offense. Before asking Shatzer any questions‚ Detective Blankenship informed Shatzer of his rights‚ Shatzer then obtained
Premium Child abuse Human sexual behavior Prison
The Private Movie Co.‚ Inc. v. Pamela Lee Anderson et al. 1. What are the facts? The Private Movie Company (Efraim) sued Pamela Lee Anderson for $4.6 million for walking away from oral and written contracts. The defendant (Anderson) claims to have agreed to the contracts on the stipulation that the script would be revised concerning nudity and simulated sex scenes‚ and upon reading the final script and seeing simulated sex scenes still included‚ walked out. 2. What is the legal issue? The
Premium Contract Void Gentlemen's agreement
Briefing the Case Assignment In the renowned Supreme Court Case of Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education‚ the rule of law was held to be that retaliating against a person because he has complained of being discriminated on the grounds of sex falls under a branch of intentional sex discrimination‚ which is encompassed by Title IX‚ Education Amendments of 1972. This was an important case with respect to intentional sex discrimination and never before had such principle of law been enunciated
Premium Complaint Discrimination Pleading
1. In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser a lot happened. In my understanding there was a school event in which students gave speeches. The one student gave a speech with language unaccepted in the school‚ and got suspended‚ and was not allowed to be voted in for the election. The Father got angry and believed that his sons amendment rights were being violated. He felt like his sons first amendment right of freedom of speech was being withheld from him‚ along with his fourteenth amendment
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Marbury v. Madison (1803) FACTS: In 1801 President John Adams in his last few weeks of Presidency appointed John Marshall as third chief justice of the United States to replace Oliver Ellsworth whom had resigned. The Senate confirmed Marshall but he also continued as secretary of state. Because of the Organic Act passed by the Federalist Congress‚ Adams had to appoint 42 justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Within the election confusion Marshall who was the outgoing secretary
Premium
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)FactsMarbury was commissioned to serve as a judge by former president John Adam. The former Secretary of State and the present Chief Justice John Marshall failed to deliver the commission before President Thomas Jefferson started his term. The current Secretary of State‚ James Madison‚ under Jeffersons orders‚ did not deliver the commission. Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver said commission. HoldingMarburys application
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution