execution of the deed‚ to anextent seriously to impair his mind‚ and who was so intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit to transact business‚ and entirely incapable of realizing‚ understanding‚ or attending to the transaction. ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor‚ or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction‚ where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Judgment
1. Is the statement defamatory? TEST: Is it a statement which tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking member of society’ (Slim v Stretch) Where the claimant is ‘shunned or avoided’ (Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures) as a result of the statement. ‘Ordinary and reasonable person’ - fair-minded‚ neither unduly suspicious nor unduly naïve‚ nor avid for scandal‚ nor bound to select one defamatory meaning when non-defamatory meanings are available Lewis v Daily Telegraph Who decides
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Legal terms
proof to establish the impropriety of the decision is on those challenging it. In the case United States District court for the Southern District of New York 683F. Supp. 422; 1988 U.S. Dist.‚ the plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive and declaratory relief of fiduciary duty. The court denied plaintiffs motion without prejudice to renew because defendants’ Board of Directors acted in good faith and thus were entitled to the benefit of the business judgment rule in the adoption of its rights.
Premium Board of directors Fiduciary Stock
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY‚ FLORIDA HOWDY GOODNEIGHBOR‚ Plaintiff‚ v. GIANT HERCULES‚ Defendant. ______________________________________/ CASE NO. 09-CF-87654321 PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT 1. What is your full name as well as your current address; date of birth; marital status; driver’s license number and issuing state; and the last four digits of your social security number? 2. What is the name
Premium Insurance Pleading Plaintiff
the judgment in a matter brought to trial by Mr. Bruce as plaintiff against Dr. Dyer as defendant. Facts: The defendant attempted to pass the plaintiffs car on the highway several times‚ during which‚ the plaintiff prevented the defendant from re-entering the traffic lane by increasing his speed. After being followed for 16 km‚ the plaintiff stopped his car on the paved portion of the highway to block the defendants’ passage. The plaintiff then emerged from his car shaking his fist and walked towards
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Defendant
sale of electronic parts. The plaintiff‚ Assante Technologies is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Santa Clare‚ California. Assante entered into a contract with Unique Technologies‚ located in California; which is the distributor of PMC-Sierra‚ Inc. located in British Columbia‚ Canada. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not meet the specific technical specifications of the order as stated in the contract. As a result‚ the Plaintiff sued for breach of contract under
Premium United States Jurisdiction Pleading
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6515 October 18‚ 1954 DAGUHOY ENTERPRISES‚ INC.‚ plaintiff-appellee‚ vs. RITA L. PONCE‚ with whom is joined her husband‚ DOMINGO PONCE‚ defendants-appellants. Marcelino Lontok and Marcelino Lontok‚ Jr. for appellants. Zavalla‚ Bautista and Nuevas for appellee. MONTEMAYOR‚ J.: The Daguhoy Enterprises‚ Inc.‚ a local corporation‚ with principal office in the City of Manila filed in the Court of First Instance
Premium Complaint Pleading Mortgage
consists of assault‚ battery and false imprisonment. The first issue is whether the act of Alice showing her fist to Robert constituted to assault. Assault is according to Winfield can be interpreted as an act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of the battery on him by the defendant. There are four elements which needs to be established before saying that person is committing an assault which are the defendant state of mind‚ reasonable apprehension
Premium Plaintiff Tort Defendant
1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff
contend that the statute of limitations has run and bars any and all claims. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations has not run due to misnomer and misidentification that the statute of limitations is tolled and does not apply as any amended petition relates back to the date of the original petition. Defendant
Premium Civil procedure Complaint Plaintiff