WILFREDO M. CATU‚ complainant vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA‚ respondent A.C. No. 5738 (February 19‚ 2008) This is an administrative case filed by the complainant claiming that the respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.. Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon
Premium Lawyer Law
William Le Grande v. B & L Services‚ INC. π (1983) ∆ FACTS: π set his own schedule‚ and operated independent and at his own discretion. π could use ∆ dispatch service but was not required to and could pick up passengers at his own discretion. π signed a K with ∆ disclaiming any ER/EE relationship. π paid ∆ a daily fee and paid for fuel. π kept all addition money. ∆ required π to keep "trip sheets" and comply with a simple dress code‚ both mandated by local ordinance. ∆ provided
Premium The Work Judgment Control
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
Citation: Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. v. Narnia Investments‚ Ltd.‚ 218 S.W.3d 126 (2007) Plaintiff and Defendant: The plaintiff/appellant is Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. The defendant/appellee is Narnia Investments‚ Ltd. Facts: In year 2000‚ Narnia Investments‚ Ltd. sued Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. and several defendants in trial court of Texas. The trial court then granted a default judgment against Harvestons and in favor of Narnia that Harvestons has to pay $365‚000‚ plus attorney’s fees‚ prejudgment
Premium Civil procedure Service of process Complaint
In “The Petitioner’s Brief in Sweatt v. Painter‚ 1950”‚ the document explained the NAACP arguments as they were before the Supreme Court. Essentially‚ it explored three arguments that the NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation. Reprinted within Waldo E. Martin Jr.’s‚ “Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents”‚ it offers key insight into the arguments the NAACP used in the Supreme Court. The first argument relates to whether schools established for Blacks
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Brown v Board Of Education is the foundation of the fight for civil rights because it overturned the idea of separate but equal that had been used to justify racism. The equal but separate idea was a result of Plessey v Ferguson that established that separate but equal does not violate the constitution. The Louisiana Separate Car Act required separate rail cars for blacks and whites. It required rail companies to provide separate but equal accommodation for black and white passengers. Plessey who
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
1-Antonio is definitely feeling stressed. He has too many tasks to perform in a short amount of time. Also he has become the team lead just recently. Anytime one begins a new position there is some amount of stress because of the unknown. New nurses usually have the skills required to perform their job‚ but can lack management skills‚ like time management‚ to get the job done. Management skills are acquired through experience and time. 2-Anotonio could have a to-do-list that might help. If I had
Premium Management Patient Leadership
Assignment I- Case Brief: McCarty v. Pheasant Run ‚ Inc. Prof Lindsey Appiah Tort Law October 28‚ 2012 Summary of Case Mrs. Dula McCarty brought suit against Pheasant Run Inc. for negligence. In 1981‚ Mrs. McCarty was attacked by a man in her hotel room‚ beaten and threatened of rape. Mrs. McCarty ultimately fought off her attacker and he fled. The attacker was never identified nor brought to justice. Although Mrs. McCarty did not sustain serious physical injuries‚ she claimed the incident
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Behihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. v. Benihana‚ Inc.‚ 906 A.2d 114 (Del. 2006) Facts: Rocky Aoki founded Benihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. (BOT)‚ and its subsidiary‚ Benihana‚ which own and operate Benihana restaurants in the United States and other countries. Aoki transferred his 100% ownership of BOT to Benihana Protective Trust in 1998 in order to avoid licensing problems stemming from his conviction on insider trading charges. Benihana‚ a Delaware corporation‚ had two classes of common stock. There were 6 million
Premium Stock Corporation Fiduciary
FOR PROJECT BRIEF PRINCE 2 Method Conia: Orange Deivis & Joey: Black Noura: Green [PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT BRIEF:] [It is essential to obtain a clear view of the final objective(s) and outcome‚ as well as the constraints and assumptions that impact on those responsible for the project. A properly constructed Project Mandate will help but as the creation of the Project Mandate is outside the control of the Project Manager‚ the Project Brief is used to
Premium Project management Sales