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
5th May 3013 V for Vendetta In compare and contrast of the film and the graphic novel of V for Vendetta starts with The voice of fate announcing its curfew to the people of London. A 16 year old girl prostitute herself for money and the guy she tries to sell herself for is a fingermen. The fingermen begin to rape her when a man in a cape walks out of the shadows. The fingerman grabs mans wrist which was pulled off. The man in the mask and cape sprayed tear gas‚ saves the girl. The fingermen that
Premium V for Vendetta
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
Van Orden v. Perry 2005 Thomas Van Orden‚ an American Lawyer‚ challenged the State of Texas claiming that the placement of the Ten Commandment monument on state capital grounds was unconstitutional because it symbolized government endorsement of religion‚ violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Van Orden v. Perry Case Brief). The Supreme Court held the monument constitutional as it was merely a recognition of the Ten Commandment in American history and served no religious purposes
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
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
West Indian Reports/Volume 19 /R v Worrell - (1972) 19 WIR 180 (1972) 19 WIR 180 R v Worrell COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS DOUGLAS CJ‚ WARD AND WILLIAMS JJ 29 MARCH 1972 Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Directions to jury - Jury told that before there can be a verdict of guilty‚ the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one - Imprecise. Criminal Law - Defence of automatism - Unsworn statement of accused - No foundation for defence. The
Premium Jury Law Appeal
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
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