physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear‚ as in the cases at bar. The effects of threats and intimidation aside‚ appellant being the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB‚ moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. Indeed‚ in rape committed by a close kin‚ such as the victim ’s father‚ stepfather‚ uncle‚ or the common-law spouse of her mother‚ it is not necessary
Premium Rape
are the appellant and the respondents. (2) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? In this case‚ the appellant is Mileva Novakovic and the respondents are Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic. (3) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’? Parties are called as the plaintiff and defendant when it is the first hearing of a case. In this case it is not an original case but had been appealed. Hence the two parties would be appellant and respondents
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Before The Hon’ble High Court of Madras‚ Tamil Nadu Application No _____/1983 C.V. George……………………...………………….………………………... Appellant v. Marshall Sons.………………………...………………............................ Respondent Table of Contents Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………..2 Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………2 Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………..3 Questions Presented……………………………………………………………....4 Summary of Pleadings……………………………………………………………5 Pleadings…………………………………………………………………………8
Premium Contract Contract law
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE‚ A. D. 2014 Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2012 LAVERN LONGSWORTH Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent ______ BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Dennis Morrison The Hon. Mr. Justice Samuel Awich The Hon. Madam Justice Minnet Hafiz-Bertram Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal G. P. Smith S. C. along with L. Mendes for the appellant C. Vidal S.C.‚ Director of Public Prosecutions‚ along with S. Smith for the respondent ______ 10‚ 21 and 27 June‚ and 7 November
Premium Domestic violence Abuse
questions of law that have arisen in these appeals. The appellant initially was a statutory authority under International Airport Authority of India Act. 1971 (for short‚ ’IAAI Act’) and on its repeal by the Airports Authority of India Act‚ 1994 was amalgamated with National Airport Authority (for short‚ the ’NAA’) under single nomenclature‚ namely‚ IAAI. The IAAI is now reconstituted as a company under Companies Act‚ 1956. The appellants engaged‚ as contract labour the respondent union’s members
Premium Employment Trade union
Facts The appellant‚ Mr Sproud was assaulted by two security guards who were employees of the respondent‚ Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited. The appellant was behaving aggressively and rudely in a pizza shop after he got seriously drunk. The two security guards arrived and removed the appellant from the shop. They then took the appellant towards the laneway and finally assaulted him while other two guards employed by the same
Premium Law Tort Tort law
| |ANTHONY ESCORDIAL‚ accused-appellant. | |MENDOZA‚ J.: | |These cases are before this Court for review from the decision‚1 dated February 26‚ 1999‚ of the Regional Trial | |Court‚ Branch 53‚ Bacolod City‚ finding accused-appellant Anthony Escordial guilty of robbery with rape and
Premium Negros Occidental
by Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts. In October‚ 1919‚ the appellants‚ Mr. Norris‚ Mr. White‚ and Mr. Browning (called for the purposes of the assessments and this appeal the "Cape Brandy Syndicate")‚ appealed against assessments to excess profits duty for the accounting periods March 11‚ 1916 - December 31‚ 1916‚ and January 1‚ 1917 - September 17‚ 1917. The three appellants were members of different firms‚ but the assessments in question were made in respect of profits
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Tax refund
the information provided I believe the appellant should be sentenced and charged. It is understandable that when one is involved in a case that can lead to time in jail‚ when it is the appellants turn to talk‚ the appellant might say the wrong thing at the wrong time. It is known that at one point the appellant had said‚ he had never driven the green Cadillac that belongs to cristabel pierce. However‚ on page three paragraph nine evidence shows that the appellant was seen driving the green Cadillac
Premium Crime Criminal justice Criminal law
Corbin v. Safeway Stores‚ Inc. 648 S.W.2d (Tex. 1993) Corbin/customer/plaintiff below/appellant below/appellant here Vs. Safeway Stores‚ Inc./grocery store/defendant below/appellee below/appellee here Gary Corbin slipped on a grape or grapes in a Safeway produce aisle injuring his collateral ligaments and the kneecap of his right knee. He saw that there was no large non-skid‚ non-slip walk-off mat that is part of the store’s policy to have in front
Premium Appeal Law Jury