Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Court and Year Full High Court 2007 District Court of Queensland 2010 New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011 Relevant Facts Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000 Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments After substantial period of default‚ banks sells sold property at auction for $150000. After deduction of sale‚ Bank seeks payment of the guarantor Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges
Premium Law Real estate Jury
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
In the Greynolds v. Kurman case‚ I agree with the court’s decision. “There was sufficient evidence to support a finding of lack of informed consent” (Pozgar & Santucci‚ 2015‚ p. 339). When I read the case it seemed like the physicians did not put any effort in explaining the complete picture‚ including the Greynolds options‚ and letting them decide what they wanted. By law‚ “when there is doubt as to a patient’s capacity to consent‚ the consent of the legal guardian or next of kin should be obtained”
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
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
v. Cruikshank (1876). This case took place during the Reconstruction period of the south in Grand Parish‚ Louisiana. During this time there were many changes being made in the state and local government positions. In 1873 the governor of Louisiana appointed a new Judge
Premium United States Constitution United States United States Bill of Rights
of Right to Counsel In the 16th and 17th century‚ the law did not allow or provide for the use of attorneys in any court case‚ except for treason cases. It wasn’t until the 18th century in which the defendants were allowed to have an attorney. The constitution allowed for the use of attorneys‚ but most defendants represented themselves‚ while
Premium United States Constitution Law United States
there is to know about judicial review. So when it comes to the case of Marbury V. Madison I knew the basics of the case but I did not know the reasons and all the facts. When I picked this case it was out of confusion behind the events that gave the Supreme Court its powers. Through examining the legal‚ environmental and personal perspective of the case we can get to the bottom of why they ruled way they did. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind because it was questioning who had
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Marbury v. Madison
20% market share where as VIP follows at 6% with operations spread across 5 continents and in 27 countries. VIP’s product range includes a variety of hard and soft luggage – strolleys‚ suitcases‚ duffle bags‚ overnight travel solutions‚ executive cases‚ backpacks‚ and even school bags. Apart from the mother VIP brand‚ the company also owns other reputed brands such as Alfa‚ Footloose‚ Elanza‚ Buddy‚ etc. It also markets under license Delsey products in India. Moreover‚ it has acquitted the UK-based
Premium Online dating service Advertising Marketing
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Challenges of modern language The English language has been around for centuries now. It exists as a racially explosive language. Some words have been lost‚ changed‚ and added. This language often coincides with the American culture of the time. As the culture changes‚ so does the language. Offensive language has become common in today’s American culture‚ and stands as a regular part of the English language. The amount of offensive language heard on an everyday basis is astounding. There is no escaping
Premium Nigger African American Black people