Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous‚ successful‚ and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Premium Contract Contract
Hugh M. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company‚ Inc. 556 U.S.868 U.S. Supreme Court June 8‚ 2009 Facts: Hugh Caperton‚ C.E.O. of Harman mining (here on labeled as Caperton)‚ filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company (here on labeled as Massey) alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining‚ resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002‚ a Boone County‚West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages. Massey
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga Case Name: California v Hodari Citation: 499 U.S. 621 Date Decided: 1991 Area of Law: Fourth Amendment Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court‚ in which justice Rehnquist‚ CJ‚ joined and White‚ Blackmun‚ O’ Conner‚ Kennedy‚ and Souter‚ JJ‚ joined. Stevens‚ filed a dissenting opinion‚ in which Marshall‚ J.‚ joined Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
&RPage |1 Entrepreneurial Finance 2013 - Case Assignment Questions R&R R&R case brings up major themes that we will see over and over again in this course. This case also differs significantly from most of the other case you will read in this course as it provides a full story of an entrepreneurial venture. In most other cases in this course‚ the entrepreneur is faced with a decision/dilemma at the time of case. In these cases I will ask you to put yourself in the entrepreneur’s shoes and come
Premium Cash flow Discounted cash flow Venture capital
R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 is a case most law students could tell you the facts of even years after graduating‚ so remarkable are they. The House of Lords‚ by a 3–2 majority‚ decided that the consensual infliction of harm on another person for sexual gratification was not an act the law should permit. The judgment has received criticism in some academic circles because‚ it is thought‚ if the facts had been different and involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity it would have been found lawful
Premium Law Sexual intercourse Common law
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NASH v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACTS: Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams‚ which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge‚ faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Judy Sal DATE November 11‚ 2011 Costanza v. Seinfield 181 Misc. 2d 562; 693 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1999) Parties: Petitioner: Costanza Respondent: Seinfield Facts: The plaintiff‚ Michael Costanza alleges that the television show‚ “Seinfield” has a character by the name of George Costanza who is based off of him without his consent. The character is bald‚ fat‚ has bad romantic relationships‚ and poor employment. Plaintiff alleges that “Seinfield” has portrayed him in a negative‚ humiliating
Premium Jerry Seinfeld George Costanza Comedy
Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) “Unreasonable search and seizures” One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort