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
House budget packages are often designed to stimulate economic growth. From the library or from www.whitehouse.gov‚ obtain a current summary of government spending and tax legislation signed by the president. •Write a brief description of the fiscal policy of the United States. •Would you describe it as "expansionary" or "contractionary"? •How can American consumers influence decision makers on fiscal policies? •Explain and discuss if and how this has changed over the past 5 years For the last
Premium George W. Bush Barack Obama President of the United States
Robbery – Sufficiency of the Evidence The issue before the COA in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of robbery. Petitioner was charged and convicted of robbery‚ theft over $500‚ and second degree assault. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for robbery‚ and‚ for purposes of sentencing the other two convictions merged. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his robbery conviction. The COA addresses the following question: Did the
Premium Evidence State Logic
Obergefell v. Hodges is the Supreme Court Case that gay marriage legal in all fifty states. The case required that all states allow gay marriages and recognize gay marriages that happened in other states. It was a 5-4 decision that was based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment. Obergefell wanted his marriage in Maryland to be recognized in Ohio‚ so he could collect the benefits from his partners death. Hodges is the director of the Ohio Health Department. The Supreme Court decided
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Marriage
In Hilgendorf v. Hague the Supreme Court of Iowa determined that Hague had the power‚ but not the right‚ to terminate the agency relationship with Hilendorf (“Hilendorf‚” n.d.). An agency relationship can be terminated by an act of both parties‚ an unusual change of circumstances‚ impossibility of performance‚ and operation of law (Cheeseman‚ 2013‚ p. 393). In the case of Hilgendorf v. Hague‚ the contract was not terminated by an act of both parties‚ because Hilgendorf (agent) did not acquiesce
Premium Contract Law Contract law