to obtain regular raises and bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and
Premium Jury Law Tort
that if there is a production point beyond the PPF then‚ it is unattainable. Meaning‚ we can’t make a lot of everything due to how we allocate our resources. We could make a lot of scarves but then we’d have to give up gloves and vice versa. 3) "If Mexico is currently operating at a point beyond its production possibilities
Premium Economics Microeconomics Economics of production
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
BRIEFING A CASE EXAMPLE Student Name: Class: Case Number: PATTERSON V. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164 (1989) FACTS: Patterson‚ a black female‚ worked for the McLean Credit Union as a teller and file coordinator for ten years. Patterson alleges that when she was first interviewed for her job‚ the supervisor‚ who later became the president of McLean Credit Union‚ told her that she would be working with all white women and they probably would not like working with her because she
Premium United States Race Black people
that the testator’s name be subscribed at the end of the will by some other person‚ in the testator’s presence and at his direction. In order to make a valid will‚ the testator must strictly comply with the provisions for formal execution. In this case there is no way of knowing that the decedent’s failure to sign was a mistake or not. DISPOSITION: The lower courts determination of invalidity is affirmed. COMMENTS: It is evident that the will was not signed by the decedent and in accordance
Premium Law Common law Sign
for damages that the defendant caused by not fulfilling the oral and written contracts. The defendant claims that the contracts were only binding if the script was revised to her specifications‚ and so were void when the changes were not made. 3. What was the court’s decision and reasons? The defendant claims that she gave consent to a script that followed her specifications on nudity and simulated sex scenes‚ and the final script did not follow these wishes‚ so she essentially did not consent
Premium Contract Void Gentlemen's agreement
the warrant. REASONING/RATIONALE: The Maryland Supreme Court found that the warrant did not authorize a search of Garrison’s apartment and the police had no justification for making a warrantless entry into his premises; however that was not the case. The US Supreme Court found that the police reasonably believed that they were searching McWebb’s apartment and it was a mistake. The warrant was executed in a reasonable manner‚ despite the mix up. The police acted in the best of their ability and
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Constable Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
silence as evidence of guilt. Procedural History: Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years. This was directly sent to the Texas State Court of Appeals who rejected the argument. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals took up the case and affirmed the same judgment. Issue: Was the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right violated when prosecutor’s used his silence as evidence of guilt‚ when he was not in custody and had not had his Miranda rights read to him? Holding/Rule: No‚ because
Premium Question Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
the statement d) Statistic 3. Event A occurs with probability 0.05. Event B occurs with probability
Premium Sampling Sample Demography
Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract