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
Name and year of the case: Parent v. Trenton School Department‚ 1999 Issues: In this scenario a student maintained residence in the town of Trenton‚ a community that does not have a high school. Students from this area are able to enrolled in Ellsworth or MDI high schools‚ however‚ due to behavioral issues the student was placed in a more restrictive environment in Bangor (Parent v. Trenton‚ 1999‚ p.2). During the spring of the 1998-1999 academic year the student returned home without “notifying
Premium Education High school Teacher
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT BETWEEN: BILLY Appellant -and- R Respondent __________________________________________ APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT __________________________________________
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
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
Which in this case‚ the court ordered him to pay half the amount due. The court cannot allow him to pay only half because of the formula they must abide by. The formula will take into consideration his unemployment. In the Borowsky‚ the court had to follow the formula‚ even though the defendant was unemployed at the time. In Moncada v. Moncada‚ the court found that the petition was insufficient. The court also ordered when
Premium Divorce Marriage Family law
1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
In the state of Ohio‚ the courts have taken a pro-business approach‚ at least regarding the nursing home industry‚ as is evidenced‚ by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case‚ the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home‚ an Ohio nursing home‚ by a former resident‚ Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home‚ she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
The Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees was a case regarding the limiting and prohibition of textbooks‚ removing books from the library and deleting courses from the curriculum. The case was disregarded by the district court‚ and was brought to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Ultimately‚ the court ruled that the school had a right to establish whatever curriculum that it wanted‚ but it was not allowed to restrict learning. The student’s right
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution High school
Dye 04/03/2015 CJAD 405 MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals‚ Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts: Jimmy Maddox was sentenced to serve a life of imprisonment after he was convicted in a Georgia State court for charges of rape. Maddox filed for a federal Habeas corpus petition after being unsuccessful at a direct appeal for his charges. His reason behind filing the federal habeas corpus was for the court violating the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland for alleging prosecutorial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus Appeal
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. 1 Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Michelle White Professor Laura Hansen-Brown August 23‚ 2012 ZIPPITTELLI V. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2 Summary This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer‚ J.C. Penney Company. Zippittelli testified that she was one of four women who applied for a position within the company and she was overlooked for the job due to her age. All four women had the same job title and
Premium Rite Aid J. C. Penney Discrimination