Page 1 ICLR: Chancery Division/1949/CANNON v. HARTLEY. - [1949] Ch. 213 [1949] Ch. 213 [CHANCERY DIVISION] CANNON v. HARTLEY. 1948 Nov. 19‚ 22. ROMRE J. Settlement - Deed of separation - Covenant to settle after-acquired property - Breach of covenant Volunteer’s right to claim for damages. A volunteer who is a party to a deed and a direct covenantee thereunder is entitled to damages for breach of a covenant contained in the deed. By a deed of separation made on January 23‚ 1941‚ between the defendant
Premium Marriage Trust law Husband
Law 494 Part 1 Shlensky v. Wrigley Facts: William Shlensky (plaintiff/appellant)‚ minority stock holder for the Chicago Cubs baseball team sued the team directors who deferred the case to Phillip Wrigley (defendant/appellee) stating mismanagement and negligence because of the refusal of the directors in installing lights at Wrigley Field‚ home field for the Chicago Cubs. Procedural History: Plaintiff original case was lost at trial and plaintiff appealed. Issue: The issue
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
After a four year hiatus in the Supreme Court docket‚ the court finally rule in 1824‚ the case of Gibbons v. Ogden‚ which eventually proclaimed the federally supremacy clause and the commerce clause‚ but it’s impact of American commerce can still be felt today. The loose interpretation of the Constitution by Chief Justice Marshall had greatly infuriated and scared the Southerners because if the government could regulate interstate commerce‚ then it could one day regulate slavery; it’s technically
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress United States
In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1‚ an action was brought by an English company‚ James Morrison & Co Ltd‚ against three defendants‚ J McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading
No‚ that was a very astute answer. I can see what you’re talking about. Thank you. If you keep watching‚ there is an episode where they celebrate V-A Day which is the day that the war ended. Again‚ if you strip away all the Nazi stuff‚ it could be Thanksgiving. It could be an Independence Day. It is really chilling by how closer it is to the American Dream than not at all. I’m still in season one‚ but I plan to keep watching. I did get to interview Lini Evans who appeared on the show and had wonderful
Premium Film
Question 6‚ April 2006: Solution to fe1 question Bell Computers could attach liability to either Chemical Supply or Industrial Estates under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Chemical Supply’s Liability Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who “for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes‚ must keep it in at his peril‚ and if he does not do so ‚ is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
relevant to the offence and the offender.3 Hence in the context of sentencing indigenous offenders‚ where it is related to the offence‚ the indigenous circumstances will provide a relevant context for mitigating the sentence.4 The seminal case of R v Fernando5 (“Fernando”) adumbrated the oft-cited Fernando principles6 which comprehensively set out the considerations when sentencing indigenous offenders. Key amongst these considerations is the relevance of indigenous background‚ poverty and alcoholism
Premium Indigenous peoples Prison Criminal justice
You be the Judge #3 Deborah Andriaccio D’Youville College Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of LAW 303V Judge Thomas Rebhan June 6‚ 2014 Kashin V. Kent 457 F.3d 1033‚ 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20496 United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit‚ 2006 Scope of employment refers to a person actively involved in an employment task at a particular time. It usually becomes an issue when an accident occurs‚ which is required to make
Premium Employment Supreme Court of the United States United States
The case Brandy V Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission challenges the constitutional validity of the scheme for the enforcement of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) determination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The High Court of Australia had decided that since HREOC was not constituted as a court according to Chapter III of the Constitution‚ and therefore was not able to exercise judicial power of commonwealth and enforce any subsequent decisions. The
Premium Law Human rights United Kingdom
Killgore Knight 12 February 2015 Homework Assignment #3 EEOC v Target Corporation 1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? The issue was whether there was disparate treatment based on race in the recruitment and hiring process at Target. The court also considered the issue of whether the employer’s failure to retain resumes and interview forms violated Title VII’s record retention requirements. The district court granted summary judgment to Target on both
Premium Employment Race African American