The district court entered judgment for Auburn‚ the students then appealed and the courts of appeals agreed with the district court decision. ISSUE: Was Auburn Universities hearing have constitutionally inadequate procedures which violated appellants’ rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment? Was the decision to suspend them was made without sufficient evidentiary support‚ in violation of their substantive due process rights under the fourteenth amendment? Did Auburn University
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
R. v. Tutton‚ [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Arthur Thomas Tutton Respondent and Carol Anne Tutton Respondent indexed as: r. v. tutton File No.: 19284. 1987: November 10; 1989: June 8. Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz*‚ Estey*‚ McIntyre‚ Lamer‚ Wilson‚ Le Dain*‚ La Forest and L ’Heureux-Dubé JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law -- Criminal negligence -- Necessaries of life -- Manslaughter -- Diabetic child dying
Premium Criminal law
WRITING CASENOTES Essentially‚ a casenote is a summary of a case. Christopher Enright‚[1] as outlined below‚ suggests the type of information that should be included in any case summary. You may wish to use these points as a guide to writing your own casenote: • Formal particulars‚ including: o The name and citation of the case (ie Mabo v Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1)‚ o Name of the court and judge(s)‚ o Name and status of each party‚ and
Premium Common law Ratio decidendi Law
Vocabulary * Plaintiff: party asking the court for relief (the one who brings the lawsuit) * Defendant: party against whom a lawsuit is brought (the one defending the lawsuit) * Appellant: party asking Court of Appeals for relief (the party bringing the appeal)‚ always the party who lost at the district court level * Appellee: party responding to the appellant’s appeal‚ always the party who won at the district court level * Petitioner: party asking the Supreme
Premium Appeal
On February 24‚ 1928 the Court of Appeals of New York first heard the agreement of Helen Palsgraf verses The Long Island Railroad company‚ appellant. After three long month of hearing both parties argument the majority ruled that the railroad is not liable for Palsgraf’s injuries because the injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the railroads negligence’s. The opposing side argued that if the duty can be traced back to the wrongful act that it is sufficient enough to establish
Premium Law Tort Common law
Phillip Rimmer Case Brief 10/24/10 1. Citation United States v. Collier‚ Jr. 29 M.J. 365 (1990) 2. Parties. United States‚ Appellee Sergeant William H. Collier‚ Jr.‚ United States Army‚ Appellant 3. Facts 1. The court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. 2. The court of Military Review misapplied the test established by United States v. Brenizer‚ 20 M.J. 78 (CMA 1985) 3. Prosecution fails to properly utilize procedures to introduce evidence
Premium United States Appeal Jury
CONTRACT LAW NOTES It is a legal enforceable agreement entered into by two or more different persons with legal capacity. The parties should have serious intention to create legally binding obligations. Their agreement needs to be within parities’ contractual capacity. Furthermore‚ parties should communicate such intention without vagueness each to the other and being of the same mind to the subject matter. Essentials of a contract a) it should be lawful b) possible of performance c) within
Premium Contract
3.2 Agency An agent is a person authorized to negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of another who is known as the principal in his dealings with a third party. The legal relationship between an agent and a principal is an agency. For examples‚ between a client as a principal (P) and lawyer as an agent(A)‚ employer (P) and employee (A)‚ house owner (P) and housing agent (A) and others. The principal and the agent are in an employment contract where the terms of appointment and authority have
Premium Contract Contract Contract law
ICLR: Appeal Cases/1974/HOWARD SMITH LTD. APPELLANT AND AMPOL PETROLEUM LTD. AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS [ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES] - [1974] A.C. 821 [1974] A.C. 821 [PRIVY COUNCIL] HOWARD SMITH LTD. APPELLANT AND AMPOL PETROLEUM LTD. AND OTH-ERS RESPONDENTS [ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES] 1973 Nov. 26‚ 27‚ 28‚ 29; Dec. 3; Lord Wilberforce‚ Lord Diplock‚ 1974 Feb. 14 Lord Simon of Glaisdale‚ Lord Cross of Chelsea and
Premium Stock Shareholder Corporations law
People v. Sisuphan 181 Cal.app.4th 800 (2010) Facts & Procedural Posture Appellant Lou Surivan Sisuphan took $22‚600 in cash and $7‚275.51 from (Toyota Marin [the dealership] defendant) his employer’s safe on July 3‚ 2007. He did this in hopes that a coworker would be held responsible for the disappearance of the money and would be terminated. Sisuphan was convicted of embezzlement on April 15‚ 2008. In June 2008 he appeals from the judgment of conviction‚ contending that the trial court made
Premium Critical thinking Criminal law Jury