Case: Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 Two shareholders of a company brought action against directors of the company for misapplication and improper use of the company’s property. The court held that as the injury complained of was injury to the company and not to the members. As such the members could not take action. Only the company had the right to sue. Case:In the case of Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd. (1967) QdR 561; The company had a husband and a wife as its only shareholders
Premium Death Share Life
Jaffee v.Redmond (1996) The case of Jaffee v. Redmond was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. The issue was whether a psychotherapist-patient would be recognized under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court granted a decision that recognized the existence of such a privilege holding that confidential communications of a licensed social worker and a police officer be protected from compelled disclosure As reported by Levy (1996)‚ the Court decided that all communication between
Premium United States Jury Supreme Court of the United States
allegedly taken from Spencer was simple documents which included some forms. These forms were not considered to be proprietary and/or controlled and therefore the confidentiality agreement was informational only. The case of Hauck Mfg. Co. (Hauck) v. Astec Industries Incorporated (Astec) is also a case that would support Giere. This case focuses on supposed confidential information that was exchanged for the development of burners used specifically for these businesses. The problem with this case
Premium Management Employment Project management
Helen Palsgraf‚ Respondent‚ v The Long Island Railroad Company‚ Appellant. Court of Appeals of New York Argued February 24‚ 1928 Decided May 29‚ 1928 248 NY 339 CITE TITLE AS: Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. [*340] OPINION OF THE COURT CARDOZO‚ Ch. J. Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant ’s railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station‚ bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the
Premium Tort Law Negligence
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Sutton v. Tomco Machining‚ Inc. 129 Ohio St.3d 153‚ 2011-Ohio-2723 Facts of the Case: In this appeal‚ DeWayne Sutton‚ an employee of Tomco Machining‚ Inc. claimed that he injured his back on the job while disassembling a chop saw. Sutton alleged that he was fired within one hour of reporting the workplace injury to Tomco’s president‚ Jim Tomasiak. No reason was specified in the termination; however he was told the firing was not due to his work ethic or job performance or because he had broken
Premium Law Common law
Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966 Michalle Cochrane(Wilborn)‚ Stephanie Cox‚ Shereka White and Vanetia Riley CJA 364 June 10‚ 2013 Jonathan Sperling Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966 In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court‚ in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
1. Rule in Rylands v Flecther * Rylands v Flecther Facts | * P sued D‚ the mill owner‚ for the flooding caused by the escape of water from reservoir on D’s land. * Noted that the escape is caused by the negligence of the independent contractor‚ hired by D. * However‚ R v F is a strict liability and the negligence of the third party does not exonerate D’s liability. | Held | * Court was of the opinion that obligation on the person who lawfully brings on his land something which
Premium Causality Escape Plaintiff
based on an act of persuasion or some amount of force used to overcome the free will and judgement of another. In Bundaberg Bank v Clayton‚ the case according to Chief Justice Perth and Justice Mackay was based on unconscionable conduct where it knowingly took advantage of Ms Clayton’s poor understanding of the document which detailed her obligations as a guarantor. In Wayne v Kyle‚ according to Justice Smith‚ the gift was made in unconscionable circumstances where Ms Kyle deliberately created a false
Premium Law Real estate Jury
Indexed as: Silber (c.o.b. Stacey’s Furniture World) v. British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd. Between Arnold Silber‚ and Value Industries Ltd.‚ carrying on business as Stacey’s Furniture World‚ plaintiffs‚ and British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd.‚ Dale Hicks and Ken Chu‚ defendants [1985] B.C.J. No. 3012 [1986] 2 W.W.R. 609 69 B.C.L.R. 34 Vancouver Registry No. C812859 British Columbia Supreme Court Vancouver‚ British Columbia Lysyk J. Heard: November
Premium Privacy law Privacy Tort