I attended a pre hearing conference on your behalf in the above-referenced matter before Judge Alade in New Windsor‚ New York on 05/15/17. The claimant’s widow‚ Anna Matero was present and was represented by William Cerle. As you know this case is a controverted claim for death. The claimant’s widow is alleging her husband‚ John Matero‚ death was caused by multiple myeloma. Mr. Matero had an underlining disability case with WCB# G097 2311. That case was established for multiple myelomas and consequential
Premium Myocardial infarction Heart Hypertension
Facts: Mick‚ Keith‚ Charlie‚ Bill and Brian were directors and equal shareholder of Big Lips Music Pty Ltd. Brian resigned his directorship as a result of differences with Mick‚ Keith‚ Bill and Charlie. The others wanted to get rid of Brian as a shareholder. However‚ Brian told them that he would never sell his shares in Big Lips Music. A general meeting of Big Lips Music’s shareholders is called at which there is a motion to insert a new clause in the company’s constitution that gives Mick
Premium Stock market Market value Constitution
Oftentimes age discrimination is not in the form of direct intentional actions. When an employee decides to pursue legal action the plaintiff has the burden of proving adverse action (Walsh‚ 2013). The director in this case has the requirement to prove prima facie in order to have a chance of winning this case. This first part is to prove that the former director is a member of a protected class of individuals. Any employee over the age of 40 years old is a protected under ADEA. The next thing the director
Premium Employment Discrimination Gender
limited to bye-laws only. For instance in Taylor v. Brighton Borough Council a departmental regulation (town planning scheme) required that any fun fair organized within a particular area would require prior permission of the concerned local authority. This provision was challenged as unreasonable. Justice Greene held that it was not justified to adjudge a departmental regulation on the same principle as that of a bye-law. The court could only check if the regulation was within the scope of the
Premium Law Property Common law
SMITH V. STAGES HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Keith of Kinel‚ Lord Brandon of Oakbrook‚ Lord Griffith‚ Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lowry. Solicitors: Turner Kenneth Brown‚ agents for Jackson & Monk& Rowe‚ Middleborough (for the employers). Sharpe Pritchard‚ agent for FA Greenwood & Co‚ Birmingham (for the plaintiff). FACTS The employers‚ Darling Insulation Co. Ltd.‚ specialized in insulation of pipes‚ boilers and power stations. Mr. Machin & Mr. Stages worked for them as loggers at power stations; they
Premium Employment
The question I will be answering is How are people with tattoos and piercings viewed by the public? I find the best issues to address will be how do employers view applicants with visible tattoos and piercings? Is body modification socially acceptable overall? And is it a distraction to others? I think this is a significant topic because a wide percentage of people have tattoos or piercings and I find it to be a big part of this generation. Some other subtopics I’d like to address are do people without
Premium Body modification Body piercing Body art
Advocate’ 1984 SLT 13 A had bought a flat in Ediburgh near the Castle. As the Edinburgh festival approached‚ the enjoyment of her flat was disturbed by the noise of erecting the grandstand for the military tatoo. The court held that this was a prima facie case of nuisance. It was irrelevant that the noise could be reduced if the pursuer closed her windows or installed double glazing. While accepting that the tatoo was a valuable and profitable part of the Festival‚ this ‘greater good’ argument
Premium Law Tort Prima facie
contract law agreement: objective test of intention to agree offer must be matched by other’s acceptance requirement of certainty of agreement parties have intention to create legal relations enforce promise: consideration promise is contained in a deed promissory estoppel (claimant has relied on defendant’s promise) reliance theory: consistent with the harm principle (prevent harm on others) restitution interest
Premium Contract
The Case of Candy Professional Orientation & Ethics October 10‚ 2012 Dr. Jarrell Smith South University The Case of Candy Candy is a 14 year old girl and she comes from a broken home with recently divorce parents. Her acting out in class may be as result of her parents being divorce. She has a boyfriend who is 15 years old and they have unprotected sex which resulted in her pregnancy. The boyfriend has already established he isn’t ready to be a father. This leaves Candy with the decision
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Fertility
The result for the direct motion for Danny Driver (DD) will be granted‚ but the direct verdict for (FF) will not be granted. The court must determine whether the hitchhiker’s estate had a prima facie case for negligence and could satisfy the burden of production to prove that both DD and FF breached their duty the day of the car accident that lead to the death of the hitchhiker. The two statutes that are relevant to the case are state statute 101 and state statute 102. State statute 101 states
Premium Res ipsa loquitur Common law Prima facie