Written by Sambhav Dhawan Advocating for the Appellant Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Quebec The appellant Balvir Singh Multani and his son Gurbaj Singh Multani are orthodox Sikhs 1. Gurbaj Singh‚ born in 19892‚ as being a devoted Sikh follower. Gurbaj believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times. A kirpan is as small religious object which symbolizes the purity of the faith and his commitment to defend it3.It bears a
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
song that was issued in 1900‚ in the town of Philadelphia‚ New York. The song itself was sung by Cogert Gertrude‚ worded by Daniels Walter and composed by Lilly R.P. As written at the bottom of the drawing‚ it was published by The Morris Music Pub. Co. The title of the song is the title of the drawing which is “That’s where my money goes” or the alternative
Premium Money Sociology Economics
Latimer was then sentenced to 10 years with no possibility of parole he then served half of his time in a provincial jail and half on his farm The Supreme Court then began to launch clemency petitions in 2001 Latimer also began to serve his sentence in William Head Prison during that year In 2007 Latimer had requested day parole from the national parole board he stated that killing his daughter was the right thing to do and he was then denied day parole
Premium Family Crime Police
The following case being summarized‚ R. v. Labaye is about a brothel that was in operation in Montreal called “L’Orage” in which was viewed by some members of the community a as a “bawdy house” which is an archaic term used to describe a setting in which individuals can partake in consensual acts of group sex and masturbation. The actions and activities that members of this club were involved in were done in a safe setting in which everything was done consensually. Due to the objective nature of
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Jury
. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment‚ the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co.‚ 457 Mass. 113‚ 119‚ 928 N.E.2d 327 (2010). Accordingly‚ the following is a description of the facts as viewed in favor of the defendant‚ Alexander Smith. The single car accident occurred at approximately 3:00 p.m. on October 15‚ 2015‚ when the driver‚ Alexander Smith‚ was driving northbound in Campbell Road in North Andover. The plaintiff‚ Brian
Premium Jury United States Appeal
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Facts The Defendants were a medical company named “Carbolic Smoke Ball”. Who manufactured and sold a product called the "smoke ball"‚ a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13‚ 1891‚ claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product three times a day for two weeks‚ according to the
Premium Contract Invitation to treat
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” In Bowles v. Virginia Soapstone Co.‚ the judge ruled: “expert testimony is a useful and necessary adjunct to the administration of justice‚ and a capable expert can often throw much light upon dark places; but the force of expert testimony must‚ after all‚ in large measure depend upon the reasons that the witness is able to give for the opinions which he expresses.” In Bird v. Commonwealth‚ the court found: "All persons who practice a business
Premium Law Jury Evidence law
In Keighley‚ Maxted & Co v Durant (1901)‚ A was authorized by P to buy wheat at 44s 3d a quarter on a joint account for A and P. Wheat was unobtainable at this price and‚ therefore‚ A agreed to buy from T at 44s 6d a quarter. Though he intended to buy it on behalf of himself and P‚ A contracted in his own name and did not disclose the agency to T. The next day P ratified the purchase at the unauthorized price but‚ in due course‚ P and A failed to take delivery. It was held by the House of Lords
Premium Appeal Contract
James Leamon Johnson & Wales University Law 2001 Professor Bertron 01 Feb 2014 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez Briefly explain the opinion. Which of Martinez’s claims were successful and which were not? Why (what was the court’s legal explanation)? In this case‚ Martinez brought forward three claims. First‚ he claimed strict product liability based on defective design of the tire. Martinez also claimed negligence and gross negligence. In their ruling‚ the jury found that the defective design
Premium Jury Tort Law