Capital Public Radio‚ Inc. 88 Cal. App. 4th 33 (2001) CHARLES STARZYNSKI‚ PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT‚ v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO‚ INC.‚ DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT ISSUE: 1. Whether Starzynski was wrongfully discharged from his position. 2. Whethe Starzynski ‘s discharge was constructive. RULE: 1. “judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c). A defendant or
Premium Employment Termination of employment Contract
SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CASE NO. 99-CA-201 Case Briefing 1. Parties: Identify the plaintiff and the defendant. a. SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT b. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 2. Facts: Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case. a. On April 11‚ 1996‚ Appellant Sandra Mitchell was having dinner at Appellee Friday’s restaurant. Appellant was eating a fried clam strip when she bit into a hard substance
Premium Appeal Law Civil procedure
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant‚ Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan‚ took almost $30‚000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently‚ and returned the money before any charges were filed‚ but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment
Premium
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4811 July 31‚ 1953 CHARLES F. WOODHOUSE‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ vs. FORTUNATO F. HALILI‚ defendant-appellant. Tañada‚ Pelaez & Teehankee for defendant and appellant. Gibbs‚ Gibbs‚ Chuidian & Quasha for plaintiff and appellant. LABRADOR‚ J.: On November 29‚ 1947‚ the plaintiff entered on a written agreement‚ Exhibit A‚ with the defendant‚ the most important provisions of which are (1) that they shall organize
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Defendant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT BETWEEN: BILLY Appellant -and- R Respondent __________________________________________ APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT __________________________________________
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
Briefing a Case Case Name: Traine Smith‚ Appellant v. Friends Hospital‚ Dewight Magwood‚ Benjamin Messina‚ Ronald Potter‚ Robert Anthony and Dewayne Thomas‚ Appellees • Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The plaintiff is Traine Smith. The plaintiffs are Friends Hospital‚ Dewight Magwood‚ Benjamin Messina‚ Ronald Potter‚ Robert Anthony‚ and Dewayne Thomas • What is the issue? The plaintiff sued the defendants‚ claiming that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by hospital employees while
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Pregnancy
Maheshwari 12P207 – Kaushik Mukherjee 12P208 – Kawaljeet Singh 12P209 – Kumar Abhinav 12P210 – Love Kumar Supreme Court of India Deokabai (Smt) (Appellant) vs Uttam (Respondent) on 27 July‚ 1993 Equivalent citations: JT 1993 (4) SC 374‚ 1993 (3) SCALE 255‚ (1993) 4 SCC 181 Author: M M Punchhi Bench: M Punchhi‚ Y Dayal Facts of the Case: 1. The appellant herein Deokabai is an aged widow residing in a portion of a house with her daughter and grand children. On 18.1.79 she entered into an agreement
Premium Contract
Re: Brief of Appellant: 42 USC § 1983 Application to Employment Dismissal Case II. The District Court erred in disregarding Mason County District Attorney’s Office involvement with respect to the firing of Mr. Brady‚ an independent contractor‚ who was fired in retaliation to his comments criticizing the Mason County District Attorney’s Immigration policy‚ and in concluding that the Pickering test only protects full-time government employees. The District Court incorrectly held that
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel‚ Inc. 424 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1967) Facts: The plaintiff‚ Fisher‚ was a guest invited to a luncheon held at the Carrousel Motor Hotel (the “Carrousel”) with his other associates. While Fisher was about to be served and approached to Flynn‚ the manager of the Carrousel‚ Flynn snatched the plate from Fisher’s hand and shouted that “he‚ a Negro‚ could not be served in the club.” Fisher was not physically touched nor did he suffer fear or apprehension of physical injury
Premium Jury Legal terms Court
MARGARET JEAN McBRIDE et al.‚ Plaintiffs and Appellants‚ v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY‚ Defendant and Respondent. 130 Cal. App. 4th 518; 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287; 2005 Cal. * COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA‚ SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT‚ DIVISION EIGHT Key Facts: * A. Board of Accountancy has a purpose to protect consumers by disciplining certified public accountant that are not meeting the board’s standards. B. The individual appellants were CPAs and partners of KPMG‚ which
Premium