Chapter/Case Questions: 1. Chapter 12‚ Yunker V. Honeywell‚ pg 456-459‚ Questions 1-4 1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra‚ 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra‚ 2011). The court meant that
Premium Employment
1984 and V. for Vendetta: Comparative Paragraph The famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzche once stated‚ “When you gaze long into an abyss‚ the abyss also gazes into you.” Implying the fact that when one strives to overcome a force‚ there is a possibility that one may naturally be altered into being similar to the force they struggle against. In the process of analyzing this quote‚ one can compare the two protagonists Winston and V. from 1984 and V. for Vendetta‚ to comprehend which of the two is
Premium Nineteen Eighty-Four Sacrifice V for Vendetta
Should Abortion be Illegal? Abortion has been a very controversial topic amongst today’s society. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and has been legal in the United States since the US Supreme court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Women should have the right over their own body and reproductive system. The debate over the legality of abortion has been continuous for many years. Abortion should be legal because it is a fundamental right for woman. Pro-life advocates will argue that abortion
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Roe v. Wade
Miranda V Arizona In the history of the United States‚ the legislative branch of government has developed systems of laws which the judicial branch of government checks. Because of modernization‚ the constitutionality of these laws needs to be reevaluated from time to time. There have been many cases that have caused the government to amend certain laws to protect its citizens. One of the most important cases that was brought to the Supreme Court was the case of Ernesto Miranda V the state of
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
problem was that the Act was unclear and overly broad concerning what internet communications should be criminalized. # c. The CDA was being challenged because it violated the First Amendment. In trying to keep minors away from inappropriate material the Act reduced "the freedom of speech" by restricting what adults could send over the internet. # 2) Legal Precedent: a. Sable Communications of California v. FCC (1989) was in response to a ban on indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
In Rochefoucauld v Boustead (1897)‚ Lindley LJ said ‘that the Statute of Frauds does not prevent the proof of a fraud; and that it is a fraud on the part of the person to whom the land is conveyed as a trustee‚ and who knows it was so conveyed‚ to deny the trust and claim the land himself’. Section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that ‘a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is
Premium Trust law
Missouri v. McNeely (2012) I. Facts A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes‚ his slurred speech‚ and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests‚ and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing‚ the officer took him to a nearby hospital for
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Lakeman v Mountstephen (1874) LR 7 HL 17‚ 43 LJQB 188‚ 22 WR 617‚ 30 LT 437‚ [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1924 Court: pre-SCJA 1873 Judgment Date: circa 1874 Case History Annotations Case Name Citations Court Date Signal - Lakeman v Mountstephen (1874) LR 7 HL 17‚ 43 LJQB 188‚ 22 WR 617‚ 30 LT 437‚ [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1924 pre-SC JA 1873 circa 1874 Affirming Mountstephen v Lakeman (1871) LR 7 QB 196‚ 36 JP 261‚ 41 LJQB 67‚ 20 WR 117‚ 25 LT 755 Ex Ch circa 1871 Cases referring
Premium Contract Legal terms Debt
[1893] 1 Q.B. 256 1892 WL 9612 (CA)‚ [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 (Cite as: [1893] 1 Q.B. 256) Page 1 *256 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. In the Court of Appeal. CA Lindley‚ Bowen and A. L. Smith‚ L.JJ. 1892 Dec. 6‚ 7. Contract--Offer by Advertisement--Performance of Condition in Advertisement-- Notification of Acceptance of Offer--Wager--Insurance--8 & 9 Vict. c. 109-- 14 Geo. 3‚ c. 48‚ s. 2. The defendants‚ the proprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball‚" issued an
Premium Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Invitation to treat
Citation: Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) Parties: * Phillip J. Cooper‚ Plaintiff – Appellant‚ Administrator * Charles Austin‚ Defendant – Appellant * Alois B. Greer‚ Proponent of the codicil Facts: * This is a will contest case involving a codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Wheelock A. Bisson‚ M.D.‚ deceased. * Dr. Bisson’s will‚ which is not contested‚ was executed June 18‚ 1982. Prior Proceedings: * Dr. Bisson died in
Premium Jury