274 citation omitted]. In other words‚ the plaintiffs claimed the defendants could not make an impartial decision as to whether to prosecute this action on behalf of the corporation since the defendants would face substantial personal liability if the shareholders were to prevail. Here‚ plaintiffs alleged that‚ “Defendants’ reckless stewardship of Veeco‚ particularly their failure to institute appropriate controls and
Premium Pleading Corporate governance Fiduciary
Chapter 2-pg. 55‚ Question 2-6 I do not think such comments are sufficient to require a new trial. I believe that a juror’s bias must be discovered before the trial‚ during voir dire. During voir dire in most jurisdictions‚ attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant ask prospective jurors oral questions to determine whether a potential jury member is biased or has any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness. Chapter 4-pg. 91‚ Question 4-1 Even though Trevor’s
Premium Jury Common law United States
offerors’ address‚ or received by them‚ or brought to their notice‚ or read by them.1 This rule‚ laid down in Adam v. Lindsell in 1818. It explained that if the defendants were not bound by their offer when accepted by the plaintiffs till the answer was received‚ then the plaintiffs ought not to be bound till after they had received the notification that the defendants had received their answer and assented to it.2 In this case‚ the contract be only be made unless Ada checks her voicemail before the
Premium Contract Plaintiff Offer and acceptance
Case 11-4 is about the conflict between the widow of the patient and the doctor. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the hospital and doctor Thota‚ arguing that it is defendants’ fault that led her husband to death. In contradiction‚ Thota claimed that due to the negligence and the unavoidable result that Ronnie would die‚ he would not be responsible in this case. In this case‚ the defendant‚ Thota‚ gave the explanation that it was related to contributory negligence‚ as he didn’t obtain the
Premium Tort Law Jury
Atkins v. Peak‚ 514 N.E. 2d 850 (1987) Decision by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Facts: On March 20‚ 1982‚ plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sustained serious injuries while skiing at Jimmy Peak Ski Resort. On December 5‚ 1984 plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sued defendant Jimmy Peak. Plaintiff alleged that her injuries were caused by defective ski equipment she had rented from the rental facility on the premises. She further alleged that the defendant failed to inspect ski equipment and the failure
Premium Complaint Pleading Injury
case From: Jamshid AKHMEDOV To: Therese KEELAGHAN Date: November 5‚ 2012 1) Relevant facts: Defendant: Edward Wycoff‚ 40 Defense attorney: Defendant acts as his own attorney Victims: Julie Rogers‚ 47 and Paul Rogers‚ 47 Plaintiff attorney: Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson Witness (also a Victim): Victims’ son Eric Rogers‚ 20 Witness’ attorney: Tedd W. Cassman Judge: Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John W. Kennedy Defendant Wycoff murdered
Premium United States Jury Civil procedure
“60 Minutes” report visits the rain forest‚ talks to the Ecuadorean judge and interviews a Chevron manager. The Chevron video interviews the same Chevron manager‚ as well as five professors who are consultants to the oil company‚ but none of the plaintiffs. The Chevron video never directly claims to be journalism. But a casual viewer could be swayed by the description — “Gene Randall reporting” — and the journalistic devices used‚ including file footage of the rain forest and over-the-shoulder interviews
Premium Amazon Rainforest Plaintiff
number 82A04-8876-CB285‚ White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton‚ xxxxx Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch‚ Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White. The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are seeking a summary judgment which is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously resolve a case without a trail. A judge grants summary judgment
Premium Plaintiff Judgment Defendant
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-12342 August 3‚ 1918 A.A. ADDISON‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ Vs. MARCIANA FELIX and BALBINO TIOCO‚ defendants-appellees. FACTS: By a public instrument dated June 11‚ 1914 plaintiff Addison sold to the defendant Marciana Felix and husband Balbino Tioco‚ 4 parcels of land. Defendants paid‚ at the time of the execution of the deed‚ the sum of P3‚000.00 on account of the purchase price‚ and bound herself to pay the remainder in installments
Premium Legal terms Property law Contract
wool who purchased and used it for local manufacture after 30 June 1946. The Plaintiff purchased and used wool for local manufacture between 1946-48 and received some payments. The Government subsequently stopped its subsidy scheme and the Plaintiff sued the Government for subsidies it claimed it was due. Rules There was no contract. The statement made by the Commonwealth was not offered as consideration for the plaintiff buying the wool. The Court stated that in cases such as this: ‘… it is necessary
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant