enforcement is not hidden anymore‚ the general public can see the police officers performing their jobs. However‚ those officers quick to use gun or Taser lack the skills in de-escalation when dealing with a minor hostile situation. Nevertheless‚ the case of Bryan v. McPherson was related to a situation of officer Brian McPherson and motorist Carl Bryan‚ which Mr. Bryan was pulled over and issued a citation early that same day and headed to southern California from Camarillo to Coronado. I have over
Premium Police Constable Police officer
McWilliams V Dunn Supreme Court of the United States Introduction The Dunn v. McWilliams case is a famous court case that was heard before the supreme court of United States in April 24‚ 2017. The case involved James McWilliams as the petitioner against Jefferson Dunn was the commissioner and was representing the Alabama department of corrections. The focus of the case was the sixth amendment of the US constitution was useful in providing for the right to the assistance of an attorney to represent
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Bush v Schiavo 885 So. 2d 321 (2004) a. Plaintiff: Jeb Bush‚ Governor of Florida b. Defendant: Michael Schiavo‚ Spouse of Theresa Schiavo II. Court Decision By: Supreme Court of Florida III. Procedural History: Mr. Schiavo requested the guardianship court to permit him to end the life-prolonging procedures that were supporting his wife‚ who was in a persistent vegetative state. Theresa Schiavo’s parents‚ Robert and Mary Schindler‚ opposed the motion and brought the case in to trial. After the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
CASE NOTE MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD KYLE CROSS I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723 Parties Musumeci‚ lessee (Plaintiff) Winadell Pty Ltd‚ lessor (Defendant) Date 4 August 1994 Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) Coram Santow J II LITIGATION HISTORY This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages‚ and claim for relief against forfeiture. III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The
Premium
CLAW1001: Commercial Transactions A Case Analysis Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44 Submitted by: Sindhuja Shankar SID: 305 127 950 3/10/2007 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Case Summary 3 Facts 3 Issues 3 Ratio 3 Decision 4 Critical Analysis 4 Commercial Implications 5 Legal Implications 6 Conclusion 6 Bibliography 7 Appendix † Research Plan 8 Introduction The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously
Premium Law Agency Employment
ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided to put the case on trial; it related back to the Betts v. Brady case of 1942. Unlike Betts v. Brady’s 6-3 ruling in which Betts had lost‚ Gideon won the case with an astounding 9-0 majority. The main issue of the case centers on proper representation of the defendant. In order for the reader to fully understand the scope of the case‚ he or she needs to consider Betts v. Brady. 1Gideon’s case originally started in the lower courts. 2He went to the 13th
Premium Gideon v. Wainwright United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
s Case Study: Marks and Spencer Where now for an icon of British retailing? History and background Early history Marks and Spencer (M&S) was founded by Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer in 1884 - he called his business ’penny bazaars’ with signs reading "Don’t ask the price‚ it’s a penny" (the forerunner of stores like Poundland today?) The company went public in the 1920’s and by the 1970’s M&S had established itself as a British institution with locations in every major town and
Premium
non-client in order for that auditing firm to be liable for any damages done unto the third party. In the Ultramares v. Touche case‚ the judges found that a liability arose out of a duty that Touche‚ the accounting firm‚ owed to the non-client‚ Ultramares. Touche certified that their client‚ for whom they were performing the audit‚ was solvent when in fact it was not. In the case‚ it is pointed out that Touche knew their client was borrowing at large sums and required “certified balance sheets for
Premium Tort Accountant Audit
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