NOTES OF CASES THECASEOF THE SLIPPERY EQUITY IN Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)‚’ Lord Denning M.R. said: “ (‘ Hard cases make bad law ’) is a maxim which is quite misleading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it.”a Now that it has been decided that there is to be no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal‚ it is worth
Premium Law Common law Criminal law
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
involved in establishing medical standards of care based on facts of a single case rather than on the standards of the profession (King‚ p.1236-37). In a sense‚ the issue is approached from a semantic and factual rather than medical standpoint. Helling v. Carey is a good example of such a case which excited considerable comment in the medical and legal fields. In the final analysis the case is considered unique and controversial mainly because the court dismissed the standards of medical profession and
Premium Physician Medicine Supreme Court of the United States
Statement of the Case This is a formal request for an appeal against the ruling in the case of R . v. Vaillancourt. . Mr. Vaillancourt seeks to appeal the court’s decision based on the inconsistency with s.230(d) of the Criminal Code‚ and s. 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is present in this case‚ evident when Vaillancourt’s accomplice does not inform him of his plan to bring weapons to the crime scene‚ leading Vaillancourt to believe that his lack of knowledge of the presence
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States Constitution
Penney WedBetter Professor James Barney LSTD502 Criminal Law Case Brief: State v Stark October 19‚ 2014 Citation: State v. Stark‚ 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992) Posture: Stark appealed upon conclusion of a criminal jury and bench trial to Washington Appellate court from in which he was found guilty of three counts of second-degree assault as a result of exposing three female partners to HIV virus on over 6 occasions where he used a condom some of the time and after vaginal intercourse ejaculated
Premium Law Jury Appeal
MORSE v. FREDERICK Personally as a Supreme Court judge and after taking a fairly through look at the cases‚ I’d have to rule in favor of Frederick. While the banner that Mr. Frederick had up during the school event does make a reference to drugs‚ the message is pretty vague as even I can’t really interpret the true absolute definition of the banner. Judge Steven even states “Justice John Paul Stevens took the position that the school ’s interest in protecting students from speech that can be
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: 384 U.S. 436‚ 10 Ohio Misc. 9‚ 86 S. Ct. 1602‚ 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law: Authorities of the Government must notify suspects of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Facts: The Supreme
Premium Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
S & S Air: Case Study: S & S Air’s Mortgage 3001-3 FNCE Financial Management Week 4 William Jones October 9th‚ 2012 Case Study: S & S Air’s Mortgage Background: S&S Air manufactures light aircraft. The owners of S & S Air‚ Mark Sexton and Todd Story‚ were impressed by the work Chris had done on financial planning. By using Chris’s analysis and looking at the demand for light aircraft‚ they decided that their existing fabrication equipment was sufficient‚ but that it was
Premium Interest Mortgage loan Loan
Maryland v. Pringle‚ 540 S. 366 (2003) Facts: A police Officer Snyder stopped a car for speeding on August 7‚ 1999 at 3:16 a.m. Partlow‚ the owner of the vehicle was driving the car‚ Pringle was the front seat passenger‚ and Smith was the back seat passenger. Officer Snyder asked Partlow for his driver’s license and the registration. When Partlow opened the glove box to grab his vehicle registration‚ Officer Snyder saw a large quantity of rolled up cash. After‚ checking Partlow’s license
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States