Following a brief investigation of the court listings for the 21st November 2013‚ I viewed the Court & Tribunal Services website that can be seen at the following URL‚ http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/_apps/courtlists/default.aspx Upon review of the daily listings‚ discussions with Court personnel and review of the proceedings in progress at the time of my visit to the District Court of Western Australia (500 Hay Street‚ Perth 6000)‚ I attended the following Criminal Proceedings which is
Free Jury Judge Court
student injury cases such as Hansen vs. Board of Education‚ the court observed a pattern with careless hiring‚ neglectful supervision‚ and unconcerned retention. It is important to cautiously screen all candidates‚ conduct suitable evaluations‚ and to create an environment that allows teachers to have witnesses. This environment will provide adequate monitoring and a comfortable environment for staff and students. In Kelly G. v Board of Education of the City of Yonkers‚ a student and her guardians
Premium Education High school Pleading
or is for a continuous period of six months absent from India‚ or leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad‚ or is declared an insolvent‚ or desires to be discharged from the trust‚ or refuses or becomes‚ in the opinion of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction‚ unfit or personally incapable to act in the trust‚ or accepts an inconsistent trust‚ a new trustee may be appointed in his place by: (a) The person nominated for that purpose by the instrument or trust (if any)‚ or
Premium Fiduciary Trustee Trust law
UQ Moot Court Bench Mooting Manual Contents Page Introduction.......................................................................................... 2 Approaching a Moot Problem .............................................................. 2 Researching the Problem .................................................................... 3 Written Submissions............................................................................ 4 The Oral Element of the Moot...............................
Premium Law Common law
decision of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to ban photographers and Court TV from the proceedings was wrong‚ based on the constitutional rights of the public and previous statutes. This paper will cover various cases involving televised court proceedings and public opinion concerning the media coverage of criminal trials. Table of Contents Background 4 Cameras in the Court 5 Supreme Court 6 Cameras Introduced to the Courts 8 Justification for Televising Moussaoui 9 Summary 10 References
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Court United States Constitution
Near vs. Minnesota (1931) 1. Constitutional Question: Does Minnesota violate the Freedom of Press in the First Amendment with the “gag law”? 2. Background Information: J.M. Near. published a newspaper called “The Saturday Press.” The content of “The Saturday Press” was thought to be racist‚ prejudiced and hateful in general. Because this hateful speech was spread to the public in the form of a Newspaper‚ Near was taken into custody by the state police. The state arrested the man because of
Free United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Barron V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 1833 7 vote(s) for Mayor and City Council‚ 0 vote(s) against *Background of case: *the case began with a lawsuit from John Barron against Baltimore stating that it deprived him of his property which violates the Fifth Amendment. It proves that the government cannot take private property with just compensation. The court found that Baltimore deprived him of his private property and gave him $4‚500. It was later reversed but then appealed to the Supreme
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Court Report 1. The name of the case is “Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad Vs. Mobifusion‚ Inc” and case number is 112CV236774. 2. Date and time of the session I attended is February 20th‚ 2014 at 9:00 a.m. 3. Number of department is Dept. 2‚ and the name of the judge is Patricia M. Lucas. 4. John V. Komar is the attorney for the plaintiff (Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad) and Chris Kao is the attorney for the defendant (Mobifusion‚ Inc) 5. Nature of dispute: a) The plaintiff
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
I. Title Page Report: Mishiel Lapasaran-Torrefiel v Clifford Rey Torrefiel Course: Juris Doctor 1 Student: Angelica Regina A. Rosales Professor: Atty. Judiel M. Pareja II. Introduction Petitioner‚ Mishiel Lapasaran Torrefiel the wife of the defendant Clifford Rey Torrefiel filed a declaration for the nullity of marriage and custody of the children. Defendant has deemed to be psychologically incapacitated to comply his marital obligations
Premium Marriage Legal terms Family law
Davida Joy McConico June 27‚ 2013 CSM 530 Case Brief I Hamlet v. Hamlet Facts: Who are the Parties? What Happened? What brings them to court? Andy Hamlet‚ Jr. is seeking to annul his marriage to Etta Doolittle Hamlet on the grounds that he was intoxicated and unable to comprehend that a wedding ceremony was taking place. Once sober‚ the next day Mr. Hamlet also did not affirm the marriage‚ nor did Mr. and Mrs. Hamlet cohabitate as husband and wife. Andy is a minor‚ and resident of Alabama via
Premium Marriage Family law Divorce