licence continued to be held in his name‚ which remained over the door. The plaintiffs supplied cigars to H‚ to whom alone they gave credit‚ believing him to be the owner. They had never heard of the defendants‚ who had forbidden H to buy cigars on credit. Upon learning that the defendants were the owners of the hotel the plaintiffs sued them for the amount outstanding. The county court judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and his decision was upheld by the Divisional Court. Once it is established
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Business law
What Happened at Coca-cola Advantage of Diversify Organization In a multicultural nation such as the United States‚ one would assume that the concept of diversity would have a clear definition; but the definition of diversity differs from person to person‚ from organization to organization‚ and from author to author. In some organizations‚ diversity is strictly focused upon race‚ gender‚ religion‚ and disability status; in other organizations‚ the concept of diversity is extended
Premium Affirmative action Class action Plaintiff
Relevant Facts Our Client‚ Froogle (“Froogle”) has retained our firm to file suit againt Mary‚ a small manufacturer and retailer of downhill snow skis. Froogle and Mary signed an agreement in January of 2012. On or about March 15‚ 2012 Froogle discovered that Mary had breached several of the terms of their agreement. We filed suit in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas‚ California on behalf of Froogle on May 31‚2012. Mary‚ a resident of Vermont‚ responded by filing a motion for
Premium Plaintiff Common law United States
‘unforeseeable claimant’ and lack of proximity to restrict the liability of the defendants. In the judgment of Alcock v Chief Constable of the south Yorkshire police‚ where the claims were bought after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where the plaintiffs in this case were mostly secondary
Premium Tort Plaintiff Duty of care
decided the case in favor of the defendant. Held (Court of Exchequer Chamber): The defendant were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-natural use of land. Held (House of Lords): Appeal was dismissed and compensation was given to the plaintiff. Ratio Decidendi: Any occupier of land who brings onto that land any substance which is not naturally on that land and which if it escapes is likely to do damage to adjoining property is absolutely liable for any damage so caused. The precedent
Premium Defendant Plaintiff Legal terms
organizations that must follow the HIPPA laws. 13. Privileged Communication: This is private information. 14. Negligence: This is when someone fails to provide reasonable care resulting in an accidental injury to someone else. 15. Plaintiff: This is someone who initiates a court
Premium Judge Lawsuit Appeal
civil case‚ as it is an excessively long process. This process consists of going through multiple procedures; cause of action (complaint or reason for suing)‚ writ of summons (issued by the court)‚ statement of claims (the facts according to the plaintiff)‚ statement of defense (defendant’s response or counterclaim)‚ reply‚ examination for discovery (evidence examined by both
Premium Human rights Pleading Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
CIP3701/105/1/2013 Tutorial letter 105/1/2013 Civil Procedure – Module 2 CIP3701 Semester 1 Department of Criminal and Procedural Law IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This tutorial letter contains important information about your module. Dear Student This tutorial letter comprises the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 INTRODUCTION TUTORIAL LETTERS COMPOSITION OF THE MAY 2013 EXAMINATION PAPER STUDYING AND PREPARATION FOR THE EXAMINATION CONTACT WITH THE LECTURERS CONCLUDING REMARKS ANNEXURE A: SAMPLE
Premium Pleading Answer Civil procedure
Alexandra Trogisch September 4‚ 2006 Legal Research and Writing Annamaria Maciocia‚ Esq. Citation: The People of the State of New York v. Howard Sohn‚ 43 A.D. 2d 716‚ 350 N.Y.S 2d 198 (1973) Procedural History: This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court‚ Queens County‚ rendered February 14‚ 1973‚ convicting him of assault in the second degree‚ after a nonjury trial‚ and sentencing him to probation for five years. Facts: The complainant
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Police
ELCANO V HILL 77 SCRA 98BARREDO; May 26‚ 1977 NATURE Appeal from an order of the CFI Quezon City FACTS Reginald Hill‚ a minor yet married at the time of occurrence‚ was criminally prosecuted for the killing of Agapito Elcano (son of Pedro)‚ and was acquitted for ―lack of intent to kill‚ coupled with mistake.‖ - Pedro Elcano filed a complaint for recovery of damages from Reginald and his father Atty Marvin. CFI dismissed it. ISSUES WON the civil action for damages is barred by the
Free Criminal law Law Jurisdiction