Case Brief: Sutter v. Hutchings Case Name‚ Citation & Court: Sutter v. Hutchings‚ 254 Ga. 194‚ 327 S.E.2d 717‚ Georgia Supreme Court‚ decided 1985. Parties & Procedural History: Trial Court level: Plaintiff Sutter sues Defendant Hutchings. Defendant filed summary judgment motion‚ and court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. First appeal: Ga. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals again to Ga. Supreme Court. Facts: Mrs
Premium Appeal Law Court
People v. Rangel (2012) : Case Brief Issue: When a search warrant is issued on the grounds of proving someone to be a part of gang activity‚ is it logical to be able to search their personal items such as a phone? Facts: San Mateo police believed that supposed gang member Eric Rangel was responsible for the felony assault that took place in a local park and also that it was a gang-related crime. As a result police obtained a search warrant of Rangel’s home on the grounds of proving “gang indicia”
Premium Crime Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law
Patrick Haines JLC 101 Prof. Edelson 9/11/14 Hawkins v McGee case brief Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee‚ 84 N.H. 114‚ 146 A. 641.(1929) Facts: Mr. Hawkins‚ the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee‚the defendant‚ in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
Vanessa Pettengill February 25‚ 2015 Professor Frederick W. ODell Case Brief Case: Texas v. Johnson Citation: 491 U.S. 397 Year: 1989 Facts: While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas‚ Texas in 1984‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was the only one out of 100 protestors arrested for desecration of a venerated object‚ charged with violating the Texas Penal Code Ann 42.09(a)(3)(1989). He publicly burned an American Flag as a means of political protest. The purpose of the demonstration
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law
Ashley E. Parramore Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing PA 205 August 8‚ 2011 Donnelly V. Rees Case Brief. Donnelly V. Rees Case Name: Donnelly V. Rees‚ 141 Cal. 56 (1903) Court: California Supreme Court FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased‚ who was known to be a habitual drunkard for more
Premium Appeal Jury Contract
IRAC Writing Assignment‚ Chapter 3 1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court Peoples Trust Company of Bergen County v. Kozuck 98 N.J. Super. 235‚ 236 A.2d 630‚ N.J. Super. Lexis 389 (1967) Superior court of New Jersey‚ Law Division 2. Key Facts A. Peoples Trust Company of Bergen County is a bank located in New Jersey. B. Saul and Elaine Kozuck‚ husband and wife‚ signed a promissory note with Peoples Trust Company. The Kozucks contend the due date was improperly filled in by the bank
Premium Service of process Complaint
Law Case Analysis According to the law case EEOC v. FREEMAN‚ the EEOC filed a law suit against Freeman and alleged the company’s hiring policy which includes criminal background and credit history checks‚ has a disparate impact on African-American‚ Hispanic‚ and male applicants. And the material fact of this case is whether Defendant’s hiring criteria of conducting criminal background and credit history checks is consistent with business necessity. Since the Defendant was charged by the EEOC with
Premium Law Employment United States
Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Facts: Lucy made an offer to Zehmer one night while at his restaurant to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50‚000. Zehmer and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Zehmer would sell the farm to Lucy. Zehmer claimed later that the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both drinking at Zehmer’s restaurant and that he only meant the acceptance as a joke. Zehmer didn’t believe that Lucy’s offer was genuine since they were both drinking and went along with
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
Emilie Blanc October 14th Spectrum Brands Case Brief 1. Assess the Spectrum organization and each of the markets in which the company now operates. What are the key elements from each industry about which Falconi should be concerned? Key elements to be concerned Batteries Consumers look for convenience and quality Market leaders: Duracel and Energizer (80% market share) adaptation to consumer needs and valuable negotiating power with retailers Flat growth of the market (1-2% annually) but
Premium Sales Customer service Marketing