Assignment I- Case Brief: McCarty v. Pheasant Run ‚ Inc. Prof Lindsey Appiah Tort Law October 28‚ 2012 Summary of Case Mrs. Dula McCarty brought suit against Pheasant Run Inc. for negligence. In 1981‚ Mrs. McCarty was attacked by a man in her hotel room‚ beaten and threatened of rape. Mrs. McCarty ultimately fought off her attacker and he fled. The attacker was never identified nor brought to justice. Although Mrs. McCarty did not sustain serious physical injuries‚ she claimed the incident
Premium Tort Law Tort law
WILFREDO M. CATU‚ complainant vs. ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA‚ respondent A.C. No. 5738 (February 19‚ 2008) This is an administrative case filed by the complainant claiming that the respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.. Facts: Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon
Premium Lawyer Law
William Le Grande v. B & L Services‚ INC. π (1983) ∆ FACTS: π set his own schedule‚ and operated independent and at his own discretion. π could use ∆ dispatch service but was not required to and could pick up passengers at his own discretion. π signed a K with ∆ disclaiming any ER/EE relationship. π paid ∆ a daily fee and paid for fuel. π kept all addition money. ∆ required π to keep "trip sheets" and comply with a simple dress code‚ both mandated by local ordinance. ∆ provided
Premium The Work Judgment Control
Chaiken Case Brief Facts: Chaiken made separate but equal agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barber shop. Under the “partnership” agreement: ~ Chaiken would provide the barber chairs‚ supplies and licenses. Strazella and Spitzer provide tools of the trade. ~ Gross returns were to be divided on a percentage basis between all three men. ~ Chaiken will decide all matters of the partnership policy. ~Stated hours of work and holidays. ~Chaiken holds and distributes all receipts
Premium Employment Corporation Profit
Behihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. v. Benihana‚ Inc.‚ 906 A.2d 114 (Del. 2006) Facts: Rocky Aoki founded Benihana of Tokyo‚ Inc. (BOT)‚ and its subsidiary‚ Benihana‚ which own and operate Benihana restaurants in the United States and other countries. Aoki transferred his 100% ownership of BOT to Benihana Protective Trust in 1998 in order to avoid licensing problems stemming from his conviction on insider trading charges. Benihana‚ a Delaware corporation‚ had two classes of common stock. There were 6 million
Premium Stock Corporation Fiduciary
Case Citation: Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808‚ (1991) Facts: After spending a morning and afternoon drinking beer and injecting cocaine‚ Pervis Tyrone Payne entered the apartment of 28-year-old Charisse Christopher and her two children‚ Lacie‚ age two and Nicholas‚ age three at approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 27th‚ 1987. Payne made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. She resisted‚ which lead Payne to kill both Charisse and Lacie. Nicholas was found with several severe stab wounds that
Free Supreme Court of the United States Jury United States
For nearly five years‚ the United States and Great Britain allied with the Soviet Union to defeat the Axis Powers‚ during World War II. During the war‚ the usual tensions between the West and the Soviets took a back seat to their mutually convenient alliance. Tensions gradually resurfaced after Germany’s defeat‚ and the Cold War was born. As the Soviets extended their influence by promoting and installing communist governments in the countries of Eastern Europe‚ a so-called iron curtain descended
Premium World War II Supreme Court of the United States Soviet Union
Heart of Atlanta v. United States Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964) - Any business that was participating in interstate commerce would be required to follow all rules of the federal civil rights legislation. In this case‚ a motel that wanted to continue segregation was denied because they did business with people from other states. This important case represented an immediate challenge to the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ the landmark piece of civil rights legislation which represented the first
Premium United States Constitution United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
United States v Microsoft: a Case for Antitrust Ethics Courses Eva Marie Cole BUS 670 Prof. Troy Tureau October 17‚ 2011 United States v Microsoft: a Case for Antitrust Ethics Courses In 1994‚ Microsoft Corporation was sued by the Department of Justice on behalf of the United States for violating §2 of the Sherman Act “…by engaging in monopolization through a series of exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain its monopoly power” (Mallor‚ Barnes‚ Bowers‚ & Langvardt‚
Premium Audit Auditing Internal control
Brown v Board Of Education is the foundation of the fight for civil rights because it overturned the idea of separate but equal that had been used to justify racism. The equal but separate idea was a result of Plessey v Ferguson that established that separate but equal does not violate the constitution. The Louisiana Separate Car Act required separate rail cars for blacks and whites. It required rail companies to provide separate but equal accommodation for black and white passengers. Plessey who
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States