while cruising near noon in a patrol car‚ observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious‚ and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct‚ nor did they have any
Premium Police Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
word to appellants that he wanted to speak with them. As a consequence‚ arrangements were made for appellants to care for Kly in their home on Main Street in Scranton‚ Lackawanna County. Kly was discharged from the hospital on April 12‚ 1982. When appellants came for him on that day they were instructed by medical personnel regarding the care which was required for Kly and were given a prescription to have filled for him. Arrangements were also made for a visiting nurse to come to appellants’ home
Premium Crime Death Contract
subordinate Court can file an appeal. However‚ at the death of such a person‚ his legal heirs and successors in interest may as well as file or maintain an already filed appeal in many matters. The person filing or continuing an appeal is called the appellant and the concerned Court is termed as the appellate Court. A party to a case does not have any inherent right to challenge the judgment/order of a Court before its Superior
Premium Appellate court Appeal Court
| | Chairperson‚ | - versus - | | AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ‚ | | | CHICO-NAZARIO‚ | | | VELASCO‚ JR.‚* and | | | REYES‚ JJ. | | | | ANTONIO NOGRA‚ | | Promulgated: | Accused-Appellant. | | August 29‚ 2008 | x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x D E C I S I O N AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ‚ J.: Before the Court is an appeal from
Premium Employment Supreme Court of the United States Recruitment
R. v. MacIsaac‚ 2015 ONCA 587 Facts The appellant‚ MacIssac‚ was charged with one count of aggravated assault that occurred in a collision during a recreational non-contact ice hockey game. The appeal was upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision written by Hourigan J.A.‚ reasoning that the trial judge erred through impermissible speculation to reach their verdict. The appeal concerns a collision between the appellant‚ who played for the Tiger-Cats and the complainant‚ who played for
Premium Appeal Ice hockey Logic
Case: Francisco vs. People Facts: Macario Linghon without knowledge went and sold to the shop of the petitioner Ernesto “Erning” Francisco the jewelries which was stolen by his sister Pacita Linghon to a certain Jovita Rodriguez. Sometime after the jewelries have been stolen‚ Jovita just discovered that the jewelries have been missing. She filed a complaint for theft against Pacita in the Counter Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame. Pacita was then invited for
Premium Appeal Appellate court Supreme court
published Schedule B rates based on the calculation that stone would be available within 26 chains. The appellant inspected the site and found that there was stone available for construction within 26 chains. Satisfied he submitted a tender at 13% below the rates given in Schedule B on 30th September‚ 1946. Finally the tender was accepted and contract signed on 20th November‚ 1946. However when the appellant tried to take stone from the specific area‚ he was stopped by Cantonment authorities. Furthermore
Premium Contract
SUPERVISOR: PROF.MOHAMMED A. BAKARI STUDENT NAME: SWALEHE‚ Amani (MPA) This presentation covers the “judicial review of administrative action: The Ultra Vires Doctrine” Judicial Review is essentially a high court procedure by which an appellant request or ask the court to review the legality of the decision of the government ministers‚ departments‚ local authorities and any other public bodies. The court may examine the decision to ensure that the public body made that decision had the
Premium Administrative law Law Appeal
The Practical Lawyer Bachan Singh v. Union of India (C.K. Thakker and Lokeshwar Singh Panta‚ JJ.) Bachan Singh ------------------ Appellant v. Union of India & Ors. -------------- Respondent(s) Civil Appeal No. 3110 of 2004‚ decided on July 10‚ 2008 The judgment of the Court was delivered by Lokeshwar Singh Panta‚ J. Bachan Singh - appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated February 5‚ 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu allowing the LPA
Premium Uniform Code of Military Justice Appeal
Case Title: Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Citation: [2003] UKHL 50 Procedural History (PH): The appellants were charged on 22nd August 2000; without lawful excuse damaged by fire; commercial premises and being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The appellants stood trial before Judge Maher in March 2001. The appellants’ case at trial was that they expected the fire to extinguish itself on the concrete
Premium Mind Criminal law Mens rea