Johnson Bank v. George Korbakes & Co.‚ LLP Commercial Law 03/17/2013 Facts of the case Brandon Apparel Group‚ Inc. (“Brandon”) was involved in the business of manufacturing and sales of casual apparel as well as licensed other companies to manufacture‚ distribute and sell its clothing lines. Additionally‚ Brandon had licensing agreements with several colleges‚ universities‚ and sports organizations‚ such as the National Football League. In 1997 Brandon borrowed funds from Johnson
Premium Civil procedure Finance Plaintiff
Mr. Chung estimated that he started his lease at 1361 Newton Street‚ Los Angeles‚ CA somewhere in either in 2009 or 2010 from the Smith and Company and dealt specifically with the leases Representative Bill or AKA: William Weiss. He said he rented out a small storage space which was a 12’x12’ storage space where he stored props and extra vases at the extra storage space‚ which he rented out for space for cash at $50.00 per month and with a check for $25.00 month and would give him $25.00 in cash
Premium Money Balance sheet Investment
University of Texas. She was denied entrance because she did not qualify for Texas’ Top 10 Percent Plan. This plan guarantees entrance to the top ten percent of every graduating high school class in Texas. Miss Fisher sued the University of Texas because she claimed that the use of race in admissions to the college violated the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment. The case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court which came to a final verdict. The University of Texas could use race
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
This case is an extremely known case that discusses how Roe was dealing with violence to secure her rights as a lady. Roe had tested the Texas State Laws because it stated that an abortion could not occur unless the mother’s life was in a deathlike situation or at risk. After listening to confirmations during a two year time period‚ the Court had capsized the Texas Law by a 7-2 vote. However since the 9th and 14th Amendment indicates a right to having privacy. None of the states should regulate
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States Abortion
the supreme court gathered to analyze a challenge about the University of Texas of Austin’s race-conscious admissions program. This case‚ known as Fisher II v. The University of Texas‚ was brought about when senior Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas and did not get in. She was not accepted in the top ten percent program as well( a program in Texas Law stating that top ten percent students from all schools in Texas get automatic admission into UT Austin)‚ and firmly believed that she had
Premium Affirmative action
I. Title: Brown v. Texas (No. 77-6673) II. Type of Case: a. This Supreme Court cases argues whether Brown (appellant) was validly convicted of refusing to comply with Police demands to stop and identify himself as it is a crime in the Texas Penal Code to deny identification on request when suspicion of crime has occurred. A violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a). III. Facts: a. Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo of the El Paso Police Department were on patrol when they
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
1152 Susanne Robbins 1/31/17 Texas Vs Johnson Texas V Johnson was a supreme court decision involving Gregory Lee Johnson and the state of Texas. This decision happened in 1989 on June‚ 21. The court ruled that flag burning is protected under the first amendment therefore it is not considered illegal. This decision is important because it sets a precedent for the future of protest and free “speech” including non-oral speech in the first amendment. I am interested in this case because I believe flag burning
Premium President of the United States Richard Nixon United States
1. Caption and Procedural History In the case of Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls‚ the Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Johnson Control in federal district courts over illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. The district court entered a summary judgment for Johnson Controls. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision‚ leading the plaintiff to then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Blackmun delivered the opinion of the court in which Marshall‚ Stevens‚ O’Connor
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Brief 1: Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center‚ Inc.‚ 89 N.M. 575‚ 555 P.2d 696 (1976) One similarity between this case and the client interview facts is that due to misconduct‚ both Zelma Mitchell and Natalie Attired were terminated from their jobs. One difference between this case and the client interview facts is that Zelma Mitchell had a pattern of misconduct; Natalie Attired’s employer stated in various employee evaluations that she had corrected her weak areas of development
Premium Law Lawyer English-language films
Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Procedural History The respondent was convicted in Dallas County Criminal Court of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. He was sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2000. The respondent appealed his conviction through the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas. They affirmed the decision of the lower court. The respondent then petitioned for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court then
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution