Johnson Luu 12/25/13 Legal Brief Case Case Name: Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and Huck Facts: Michael Huck who is on a wheelchair was denied from Odeon theatre that he cannot sit where he wants to sit due to the fact that he is on a wheelchair. He was discriminated by the movie theatres because the only place he can watch the movie is in the first row sits and he was also too close to the screen which interfered with his view and his enjoyment
Premium Disability Wheelchair Law
Sandy Cheng CASE BRIEFS Interhandel Case (Switz. v. U.S.)‚ 1959 I.C.J. 6 (Mar. 21) Case Facts The Interhandel case was brought before the Court by Switzerland on October 2nd‚ 1957 to declare that the United States was under an obligation to restore its assets which had been vested in the United States from 1942. In 1946‚ US and Switzerland entered an agreement called the Washington Accord that the US will unblock Swiss assets in the US. Interhandel is a Swiss company entered in the Commercial
Premium United States United States Declaration of Independence
Question 1 The U.S. Constitution and the two early Supreme Court cases on corporations—Bank of the United States v. Deveaux et al. (1809) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)—are official U.S. government documents that influenced early U.S. capitalist development. Whose viewpoints do they reflect? What are the main features of the vision of capitalism that they promote? How are these ideas similar to or different from those expressed in Joseph Story’s 1840 letter to Daniel Webster
Premium United States United States Constitution President of the United States
Case Brief Citation: New World Communications of Tampa‚ Inc.‚ d/b/a WTVT-TV v. Jane Akre February 14‚ 2003. Denied February 25‚ 2004. 866 So. 2d 1231 District Court of Appeal of Florida‚ Second District. Facts: In 1998‚ investigative reporting team‚ Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson‚ brought suit against their employer WVTV‚ a subsidiary of Fox TV‚ under violation of Florida’s whistle-blower statutes. They argued that the station had terminated their employment under
Premium Law Appeal United States
unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm. Holdings: the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $2800. Rationale: the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone. The case was a case of torts and it related to the assult and battery which the defendant should pay money for the plaintiff. The defendant has no proof of any other hurt‚ and the medical testimony seems to have been agreed that this touch or kick was
Premium Contract
power of both parties‚ whether the consumer understood the terms in the contract‚ and whether undue influence or pressure was applied. In Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio
Premium Contract Common law Law
Case Brief Assignment: State v. Kelbel Monique Ramirez JS 143 Professor Peterson Case: State v. Kelbel Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder‚ past pattern of child abuse‚ in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder‚ in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19‚ subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed‚ and argued that the district court failed to instruct
Premium Jury Law Murder
Robey v. Hinners Facts: In 2005‚ Robey who runs his business in Sikeston‚ Missouri sold a used 2002 Cadillac Escalade to a Kentucky resident‚ Hinner‚ over ebay auction. As Robey advertised‚ the car was “clean‚ better and average” and with an “ 1 month/1‚000 mile Service Agreement”. After Hinner bought the car‚ he realized that the car was not as advertised. Robey argued that since he was not a resident‚ and the lack of personal jurisdiction that he should be dismissed. Issue: Even though
Premium Jurisdiction United States Appeal
Town Savings and Loan Bank vs CA‚ Negotiable Instrument Digest GR No. 10611‚ June 17‚ 1993 Town Savings and Loan Bank vs CA Facts: In 1983‚ the Hipolitos applied for and were granted a loan in the amount of Php 700‚000.00 with interest of 24% P.A. for which they executed and delivered to Town Savings Loan Bank a promissory note with maturity period of 3 years and with acceleration clause. Thy defaulted‚ subsequently‚ demand for payment were sent to them. The Hipolitos denied being personally
Premium Promissory note Default Debt
from harm. In the fact that she did not exercise this duty‚ she then breached this duty. The breaching of this duty of care resulted in the actual causation of the facts that led to the plaintiffs Jim’s injuries. Rule of Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur. This case falls under the rule of
Premium Tort Law Tort law