1. Sion Soleimany (Appellant‚ United Kingdom) v. Abner Soleimany (Respondent‚ United Kingdom) Court of Appeal‚ Civil Division‚ 30 January 1998‚ United Kingdom Facts Sion Soleimany (hereinafter referred to as the father) and his son‚ Abner Soleimany (refers as the son) were engaged in the export of Persian carpets from Iran. Between 1980 and 1983‚ the son arranged for the export of the carpets from Iran in contravention of Iranian Revenue laws and export controls. The carpets were sold by the father
Premium Arbitration Court
INTOXICATION AS A DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL LIABILITY : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUBMITTED BY: Sharad Arya Intoxication with alcohol and drugs is commonly associated
Premium Criminal law Common law Crime
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ______________________________________________________________________________ The Insurable Interest Doctrine __________________________________________________________________ Name: Sukriti Guha Roll No.: 142 Semester:
Premium Insurance
LABOUR LAW PROJECT ON Judicial interpretation of the expression „arising out of and in the course of employment‟ Prepared By Shreya Prabhudesai S.Y. L.L.M. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sr. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Introduction 3 2. Employer’s liability for 4-23 compensation 3. Doctrine of Notional Extension 23-28 4. Occupational Diseases 28-31 5. Conclusion 32 6. Bibliography 33 2 Judicial interpretation of the expression
Premium Employment
| NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et. al‚ Appellant v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS et. al‚ RespondentTHE SUPREME ULTIMATE OMNIPOTENT HANSON COURTJUDGES: Authored by Joseph Sims and Thomas Shellum with whom Chief Justice Jim Hanson concurs.March 1‚ 2012‚ FiledPRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District Nos: 11-393 &11-400. Date filed: August 12‚ 2011COUNSEL: For Appellant(s): Zachary Johnston‚ Salem Law Services‚ Salem‚ ORFor Respondent(s): Mitchell
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
Summary ——United Dominions Corporation Ltd Brian Pty Ltd（1985）HCA 49；157 CLR 1 This is an appeal which is against the decision upholding the previous appeal. While the legal issue is that whether UDC who is the appellant in this case had fiduciary relationship with Brian who is the first respondent and whether UDC acted in the breach of its fiduciary duty to Brian. Actually‚ the fact of the case is that UDC‚ SPL and others got involved into two arranged development of land which turned into
Premium Lawyer Fiduciary Trustee
Salazar‚ Kristine Kim B. 4-DLM 1. Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance FACTS: Tolentino et al is questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24‚ Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR‚ the same did not complete the 3 readings
Premium Tax Value added tax Indirect tax
Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Project ID: 7 of 8 DOCUMENTS CHRISTOPHER NADEL‚ by and through his next friend‚ BRENDA NADEL‚ his natural mother‚ EVELYN NADEL‚ and PAUL NADEL‚ Plaintiffs-Appellants‚ v. BURGER KING CORPORATION and EMIL‚ INC.‚ Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL No. C-960489 COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO‚ FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT‚ HAMILTON COUNTY 119 Ohio App. 3d 578; 695 N.E.2d 1185; 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2144 May 21‚ 1997
Free Product liability
TORTS Table of Contents Breach of Duty 3 General Principles for Establish a Breach of Duty 3 The Calculus of Negligence 4 Who is the Reasonable Person? 9 Causation 13 Factual Causation under the Common Law 13 Factual Causation under Statute 16 Novus Actus Interveniens 18 Successive Causes 20 Exceptional Cases 21 Remoteness 24 Foreseeability of Damage 24 Kind of Injury and Manner of its Occurrence 25 Eggshell Skull Rule 26 Concurrent Liability 28 Vicarious Liability 28 Non-delegable
Premium Negligence Tort law Common law
1. What is the most “jealously” protected kind of speech‚ according to the court in this case? (3 points) Free speech 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Supreme Court 3. Briefly – state the facts of this case‚ using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The plaintiff and several other bridal photographs were published in a newspaper. The radio show decided to have an “Ugliest Bride” contest and made some derogatory comments about the plaintiff
Premium