Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corporation. 123 Ohio St.3d 216‚ 2009-Ohio-4231 Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act‚ as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act‚ prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on
Premium Pregnancy Discrimination Prima facie
Case Brief: R v.Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar‚ 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence‚ registration‚ and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh‚ the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note‚ and a photocopy of the vehicle registration. When inquired about the spelling of
Premium Appeal English-language films Judgment
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
Legal Memorandum vs. Case Brief A case brief is a short summary of a reported case. Students write case briefs to summarize cases they have read for class to keep track of the large number of cases students are required to read and analyze. During legal research case briefs serve to help the researcher keep track of the cases read and analyzed and can serve as the foundation for legal arguments in trial briefs or other documents filed with the court. Basically‚ a case brief summarizes the components
Premium Law Appeal Jury
Civ Pro II I. Joinder A. Joinder By ∆s: 3d Party Claims (Impleader Rule 14) 1. Cases a. Price v. CTB – Latco moved to file a 3rd party complaint against ITW who designed the nails used in the chicken house. Can implead under Rule 14 against someone who may be liable “A 3rd party claim will not be permitted when it is based upon a separate & independent claim. Rather‚ the 3rd party liability must in some way be derivative of the original claim; a 3rd party may be impleaded
Premium Law Contract Common law
R v. Latimer The case with Robert Latimer all began with his twelve year old daughter having cerebral palsy and being quadriplegic. Tracy would suffer from many seizures a day and was also believed to have a brain capacity of a four-month old which caused her to be dependent. Tracy underwent many surgeries to try to give her an “easier” life but nothing seemed to chance any changes. No changes for the better or for the worse. So it wasn’t like she was near death. November 19th 1993‚ she was supposed
Premium United States Jury Supreme Court of the United States
CASE NOTE MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD KYLE CROSS I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723 Parties Musumeci‚ lessee (Plaintiff) Winadell Pty Ltd‚ lessor (Defendant) Date 4 August 1994 Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) Coram Santow J II LITIGATION HISTORY This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages‚ and claim for relief against forfeiture. III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The
Premium
In Schenck v. United States‚ the Supreme Court keyed the famous “clear and present danger” test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech‚ under the first amendment. In finalizing the conviction of a man accused with disturbing the peace by handing out provocative flyers to draftees of the war‚ the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in certain ways‚ words can create a “clear and present danger” in a way that Congress may constitutionally disallow. While
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
CRUZAN‚ BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS‚ CRUZAN ET UX. v. DIRECTOR‚ MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH‚ ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 497 U.S. 261; 110 S. Ct. 2841; 111 L. Ed. 2d 224; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3301 December 6‚ 1989‚ Argued June 25‚ 1990‚ Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. DISPOSITION: 760 S. W. 2d 408‚ affirmed. JUDGES: REHNQUIST‚ C. J.‚ delivered the opinion of the Court‚ in which WHITE‚ O’CONNOR‚ SCALIA‚ and KENNEDY
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
The way that Napster collected revenue was by advertisers. Advertisers would pay Napster to infuse their advertisements on Napster’s web site. There was a law suit against Napster that is referred by A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. Although this case is called A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. it consisted of many record companies that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law suit was filed because it is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights
Premium