Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
non-client in order for that auditing firm to be liable for any damages done unto the third party. In the Ultramares v. Touche case‚ the judges found that a liability arose out of a duty that Touche‚ the accounting firm‚ owed to the non-client‚ Ultramares. Touche certified that their client‚ for whom they were performing the audit‚ was solvent when in fact it was not. In the case‚ it is pointed out that Touche knew their client was borrowing at large sums and required “certified balance sheets for
Premium Tort Accountant Audit
Administration Law November 24‚ 2012 Korb v. Raytheon‚ 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass) case involves an employee‚ Lawrence J. Korb and Raytheon Corporation the company. “Korb was terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operation of Raytheon Corporation because he publicly expressed opinions‚ which was a conflict of interest with the corporation’s economic concern” (http://www.loislaw.com.libdatab.strayer.edu/pns/index.htp). The case involves freedom of speech‚ information and challenges
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
trevor v whitworth [1887] case i need to get this case ‚ what is the case is in about the face and the courts decision Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor[1990] 1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans to the respondents and the loan was secured by documents and guarantees. The documents evidencing the loans showed that the hotel whose shares were being purchased by a company had given financial assistance to that company. This act contravened Section 67 of the Companies
Premium Bond Debt Platoon
Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1‚100‚000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is
Premium Escape Tort Legal terms
Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for fraud and breaches of warranty. Summary judgement granted in favor of defendant by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material facts exist. The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant‚ a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty‚ but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a
Premium Automobile Law English-language films
Affaf Noor Saidi 1. Consider arguments for and against granting bail to each of the following defendants. * Lucy‚ aged 22‚ has been charged with dealing heroin. She was caught with a large amount of the drug in the back of her car. She lives with her parents and has worked as an office assistant for the same employer since leaving school at the age of 16. Bail is when a person is granted temporary freedom provided the person promises to appear at court on a fixed date and pay a certain
Premium Criminal law Jury Crime
I. Case Name: Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton (1989). This civil law case refined the actual malice standard. II. Summary of Facts: In November 1983‚ Connaughton ran for the position of Municipal Judge of Hamilton‚ Ohio‚ and lost to James Dolan. Dolan resigned from the position a month later and was arrested for perjury charges. While an investigation took place‚ the Journal News ran an article quoting Alice Thompson‚ a witness‚ saying Connaughton had used his “dirty tricks” and offered
Premium Crime Freedom of speech Mass media
Case Review of Business Tort Krista Lee Methodist University In the appeal case of Smith v. Stewart‚ author Haywood Smith‚ Smith’s publisher‚ and secondary publishers contend that the court erred in denying a summary judgment for the claims of defamation‚ false light invasion of privacy‚ negligent infliction of emotional distress‚ intentional infliction of emotional distress and public disclosure of private facts. These charges were brought against Smith by longtime friend‚ Vicki
Premium Law Tort United States
1. Citation: United States v. Conti‚ E.D.S.C.‚ Western Division‚ No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts: In 2011‚ the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289‚ which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs‚ headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina‚ and the Defendants‚ Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson‚ who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation
Premium United States North Carolina South Carolina