Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was given food
Premium Crime Death Contract
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION‚ PRETORIA CASE NO: CC113-2013 DATE: 2014-09-11‚ 12 In the matter between THE STATE and OSCAR LEONARD CARL PISTORIUS Accused BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE MASIPA ASSESSORS: ADV J HENZEN DU TOIT ADV T MAZIBUKO ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: ADV GERRIE C NEL ADV ANDREA JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: ADV BARRY ROUX SC ADV KENNY OLDWAGE INTERPRETERS: MS F HENDRICKS JUDGMENT VOLUME 42 (Page 3280 - 3351) iAfrica
Premium
Arbiters and the commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision‚ the following cases involving are workers‚ whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Those that workers may file involving wages‚ hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 3. All money claims of workers‚ including those based on non-payment
Premium Employment Trade union National Labor Relations Act
illegality‚ and no right of action exists in respect of anything arising out of the transaction. In such a case the maxim In pari delicto‚ portior est conditio defendentis applies‚ and the test for determining whether an action lies is to see whether the plaintiff can make out his claim without relying on the illegal transaction to which he was a party. Halsbury 2nd Ed. Vol. VII p. 173. Case referred to Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd (1945) 1 KB 65; (1944) 2 All ER 579 1953 1 MLJ 239
Premium Pleading Complaint Automobile
THE NESTLl? TAKEOVER 01; ROWNTREE The NestleTakeoverof Rowntree: A Case Study DANA HYDE‚ Ph.D. candidate‚ INSEAD‚ Fontainebleau‚ France; JAMES ELLERT‚ IMD Faculty‚ Lausanne‚ Switzerland; J PETER KILLING‚ Associate Professor of Business Administration‚ University of Western Ontario‚ Canada Against a background of weak share price behaviour and weak (although improving) operating performance‚ Rowntree plc found itself subject to a Dawn Raid on its shares early in
Premium Chocolate Takeover
GSBA521B Term III‚ Fall 2012 Professor Ku Case—Blaine Kitchenware‚ Inc.: Capital Structure Assignment: Your team’s task is to recommend to the Board of Blaine Kitchenware (BKI) whether the firm should undertake the leveraged recap. In doing so‚ please address the four questions below. Teams 1-6: your task is to recommend for a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support Teams 7-13: your task is to recommend against a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Capital structure Finance
Supreme Court of the Philippines The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas) is the country’s highest judicial court‚ as well as the court of last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution‚ the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof".[1] The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila‚ with the main building
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Court
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-13954 August 12‚ 1959 GENARO GERONA‚ ET AL.‚ petitioners-appellants‚ vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION‚ ET AL.‚ respondents-appellees. K.V. Felon and Hayed C. Cavington for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Conrado T. Limcaoco for appellees. MONTEMAYOR‚ J.: Petitioners are appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate dismissing their complaint
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Religion Conscientious objector
Class 3 Anti-trust Laws Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself”
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
specifically for this text that supplements this case. 1. Hard Rock’s 10 Decisions: This is early in the course to dis- cuss these in depth‚ but still a good time to get the students engaged in the 10 OM decisions around which the text is structured. Product design: Hard Rock’s tangible product is food and like any tangible product it must be designed‚ tested‚ and “costed out.” The intangible product includes the music‚ memorabilia‚ and service. Quality: The case mentions the quality survey as an overt
Premium Management Cost Supply chain