The rule in Ryland’s v Fletcher was established in the case Rylands v Fletcher [1868]‚ decided by Blackburn J. In effect‚ it is a tort of strict liability “imposed upon a landowner who collects certain things on his land – a duty insurance against harm caused by their escape regardless of the owner’s fault”. The tort under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is described as one of strict liability. This means that liability may be imposed on a party without finding of fault such as negligence. The plaintiff
Premium Tort Tort Complaint
Wisconsin v. Yoder‚ 406 U.S. 205 (1972) In the year 1971‚ two parents whose names were Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller who were of the Old Order Amish religion and one parent whose name was Adin Yutzy who was of the member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church were accused under a Wisconsin law that stated all students under sixteen should go to school. The Parents all believed it was against their religious beliefs for their children to go to high school and they refused to send their children
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution High school
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion‚ or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech‚ or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble‚ and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.law.cornell.edu). Over the years there have been many court cases that try to help decipher what is mean by the 1st amendment. In 1942 commercial speech was introduced by the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
The Furman v. Georgia decision of the Supreme Court was the first time in history where a higher court had ruled against capital punishment. However‚ the Supreme Court later suggested new legislation that overturned the ruling that capital punishment was cruel and unusual (Bohm‚ 1997). Opponents for the death penalty were elated. Executions such as drownings‚ crucifixions and burning at the stake were carried out for things such as marrying those of Jewish accent‚ non-confession by criminals and
Premium
TABLE OF CONTENT 1 | Introduction | 2 | 2 | Question 1 | 3 | 3 | Question 2 | 4 | 4 | Question 3 | 6 | 5 | Question 4 | 9 | 6 | Question 5 | 11 | 7 | Conclusion | 12 | INTRODUCTION Century National Bank has offices in several cities in the Midwest and the southeastern part of the United States. Mr. Dan Selig‚ president and CEO‚ would like to know the characteristics of his checking account customer. To better understand the customers‚ Mr. Selig asked Ms. Wendy Lamberg‚ director
Premium Normal distribution Confidence interval Sample size
The KWETEY v. BOTCHWAY AND ANOTHER case explains the principle of “you cannot give what you do not have” which has its Latin as “Nemo dat quod non habet”. In this case‚ the bank‚ wanted to sell a boat that rightfully belonged to Kwetey and this was established by the court to be against the principle stated supra. The facts in Kwetey v Botchway are that the plaintiff had mortgaged his house to the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) to secure a loan to replace a broken marine engine in a 40-footer
Premium Breach of contract Breach of contract Damages
Research Paper 3: Leadership and Management: A case study of Royal Dutch Shell Submitted Management and Leadership MGMT 704 - 102 October 15th‚ 2013. Introduction A change in a company’s leadership can trigger a shift in strategy and is usually followed by periods of convergence. The convergence periods are characterized by small incremental changes which have both advantages and disadvantages. A company leader with high social intelligence can leverage on the advantages of the convergence
Premium Management Royal Dutch Shell Chief executive officer
Terry v. Ohio: Martin McFadden was a police officer in Ohio who noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting suspiciously. While watching these people from his police car‚ Officer McFadden noticed that these two men appeared to be planning a criminal attack. The two men were walking back and forth in front of a store while conspiring with each other. When McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a law enforcement officer‚ he walked them down the street and frisked them for
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29‚ 2014 and decided on June 25‚ 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.
Premium
Russell v. the Queen (1882): This case fell according to the JCPC under powers in favor of the federal government. The reasoning for this case is not convincing. The reason for this is that it does not ban alcohol for the entire country‚ but instead merely restricts and regulates it. The legislation for this case could have fallen under: section 92 (9)‚ which deals with saloons‚ taverns‚ and shops; section 92 (13) which is about property and civil rights in the province; or section 92 (16) which
Premium United States Canada United States Constitution