Title: Why do we need Administrative Law? What kind of disputes are being settled(solved) by the administrative courts Administrative law is a branch of law governing the creation and operation of administrative agencies.It covers a wide and varied area of practice‚encompassing many different types of governmental legal procedures and regulations‚and is not easily defined.Much of government and its public programs operate largely through various agencies on different levels:federal‚state‚county
Premium Law Administrative law Lawyer
who made the payment. Issue: 1.Whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the other person interested in the bond? Arguments for the Appellant Defendant. Payment to one joint creditor was a valid discharge of the debt as against the other. As under section 38 of the Contract Act‚ ‘An offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them. In
Premium Common law Debt Defendant
Title: A Study on Dishonour of Negotiable Instrument with Special Emphasis on laws of Dishonour of Cheque in India Table of Contents Chapter No. | Chapter Title | Page No. | Chapter 1 | Introduction:-Title General IntroductionStatement of the Problem Objective of the StudyHypothesisesResarch Question Scope and Limitation Research MethodologyTentative ChapterizationReview of Literature | 5-9 | Chapter 2 | Meaning of Negotiable Instrument and Dishonour of Negotiable Instrument | 10-12 |
Premium Cheque Law
Assignment Question: A person who is charged with a criminal offence enjoys certain rights. The principle right is that of the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself. The right to silence is an immunity‚ which differs in nature‚ origin‚ incidence and importance. The suspect’s immunity was developed in order to avoid the risk of untrue confessions being obtained from a person in police custody. The law does not prohibit a suspect from confessing to a crime. It does however provide
Premium Management Organization Education
compensation and the rate of interest payable on the compensation to facilitate the change brought about by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act‚ 1984. The Court awarded solatium at 30 percent of the market value. This award was contested by the appellants through the Special Leave Petition Nos: 8194- 8195 of 1985. The case was presented before a division bench of the Supreme
Premium Common law Jury Supreme Court of the United States
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Disclaimer II. Acknowledgments III. Table of Contents IV. Introduction V. Objective VI. Methodology VII. Case Study 1. Facts 2. Judgement * By the Trial Court * By the High Court * By the Supreme Court 3. Basis of Judgement 4. Case reference VIII. Sovereign Immunity 1. Journey of the Doctrine 1.1Pre Constitutional Era 1.2 Post Independence and Constitution of India IX. Sovereign Functions &
Premium Constitution of India Common law Police
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States The parties: In Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States‚ the plaintiff was the United States. The United States was also the Appellee. Arthur Andersen is the defendant as well as the appellant. The history: Arthur Andersen was found guilty at the jury trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also affirmed him guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Andersen’s convictions due to “flawed jury instructions.” The facts: Arthur Anderson formed a crisis-response
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Jury
sentence. This conviction was overturned by the Virginia Court of Appeals which invoked Virginia’s statutory arrest rules. The search was unconstitutional because the Code made clear that‚ absent additional facts‚ the detectives were required to issue appellant summons for the misdemeanor offense of driving on a suspended license. An en banc decision reinstated Moore’s conviction. This group of judges held that although his arrest violated Virginia’s arrest statutes‚ exclusion of evidence was not the remedy
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law Supreme Court of the United States
BA 3310 Case Project Written Assignment February 21‚ 2012 DONNIE McGRAW‚ Appellant v. BROWN REALTY COMPANY‚ Appellee FACTS: Donnie McGraw signed a lease with Brown Realty Company located at 7307 South Westmorland Road‚ Dallas‚ Texas where he would be running a restaurant. On December 24‚ 2003 when McGraw signed the contract he agreed that the lease would be from February 15‚ 2004 through February 14‚ 2009 where he would be paying $3‚450 a month a totaling $207‚ 000 at the end. On March 3
Premium Contract law Breach of contract Cause of action
agreement was finally signed‚ on November 29‚ 1978‚ Cross also asked for financial statements for Stephens and Milby‚ but did not receive them. The purchase agreement provided for a 90 day period until closing. In Early December‚ Milby approached appellant James Foster‚ a painter contactor‚ and discussed the assignment of his interest in the contract. Cross was not informed of the assignment until February or March of 1979. Cross continued to insist on financial statements‚ which were still not given
Premium Contract Real estate Supreme Court of the United States