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 2014 HAFIZ-BERTRAM JA Introduction
Premium Domestic violence Abuse
OF MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES‚ Plaintif-Appellee‚ -versus- GA. G.R. No. 123456 PEDRO SARMIENTO Y TORDECILLA Accused-Appellant‚ x------------------------------------------x APPELLEE’S BRIEF SUBMITTED BY OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL #234 Palack St‚ GSIS Building‚ Brgy. Vito Cruz‚ Manila‚ Philippines By Dioxenos Barreras Sulit Associate Solicitor General SUBJECT INDEX
Premium Criminal law Rape Manila
.2 R v Sally Clark (1999) 5.2.a Danger of multiplying probabilities together One of the laws of probabilities states that when the events are independent of each other their probabilities can be multiplied together. This is called the product rule. In the trial‚ Roy Meadow was asked to present some statistical information as to the happening of two cot deaths within the same family. It was explained to the jury that there were factors that were suggested as relevant to the chances of a Sudden Infant
Premium Law Tort Negligence
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States
Case 02 H&P Examination Patient: Emma Parker PCP: Sherman Loyd‚ MD Hospital: 11259 Room: 444 Date of admission: 09/25/2015 ADMITTING DIAGNOSIS Acute intertrochanteric fracture of right hip. The history below was obtained from the patient and physical examination was performed with her stated verbal understanding and consent. She was alert & oriented x 3 with reasonable thought content. She understood questions well and was in no acute distress. CHIEF COMPLAINT Right hip injury. HISTORY
Premium Medical history Osteoporosis Hip
Apple Inc. history and important information we came up with from the case that allowed us to successfully determine the “3 C’s and 4 P’s” and potential improvements: April fool’s Day of 1976 would mark the start date of the very powerful Apple Inc. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak‚ two college dropouts‚ began creating a computer circuit board in a garage. The main goal was to bring an easy-to-use computer to the market. By 1978‚ the product Apple II was released‚ and Apple Inc. became a powerful
Premium Apple Inc. Macintosh
Described Historical Perspective: The historical perspective of Apple Inc. shows us that they were an innovative company that started the industries of successful computers‚ music players‚ phones and many other electronic items we have used over the past thirty years. Apple Inc. have had their ups and downs to include in depth software/hardware which was difficult for competitors and users to understand and mimic as well as holding face on their computer background with their innovative technologies
Premium Apple Inc. Operating system Personal computer
Butterfield v. Forrester Factual Situation: 1809‚ Butterfield‚ plaintiff was riding and struck an a pole placed in the road by Forrester‚ defendant‚ at approximately 8 PM; sued for damages Witness testified that pole was visible at 100 yards with light at that time‚ and that Butterfield was riding recklessly Trial court: jury instructed that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole and that Butterfield was not riding with care‚ Forester should win Trial Court
Premium Law Appeal Common law
Vehbi Koc and the Making of Turkey’s Largest Business Group:– CASE BRIEF Harsha Vardhan Reddy Tamatam (Section C1) E-mail: harsha.tamatam@global.t-bird.edu ID: 1461005 What drives Vehbi Koç in establishing his businesses? What motivates him? * The wealth and lifestyle differences between Muslim Turks and non-Muslims around him motivated him to become a tradesman. * The lifestyle differences between the people living and Istanbul and in Ankara pushed him to be more successful
Premium Turkey Istanbul Management
Payton Case Brief: United States v. Peterson‚ 483 F.2d 1222 (1973) Issue: Is self-defense available for a justifiable homicide case? Facts: The victim‚ Charles Keitt‚ drove to an alley way to obtain windshield wipers off the defendant’s car‚ Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson observed the victim‚ Mr. Keitt‚ doing this and confronted him with an altercation. The victim went back to his car and the defendant‚ Mr. Peterson‚ returned inside his home. The victim was about to leave‚ but because the defendant provoked
Premium