Case Brief – Extra Credit Citation: SPECTRUM STORES INC‚ Plaintiffs - Appellants v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; SAUDI ARABIAN OIL COMPANY‚ doing business as Saudi Aramco; Defendants - Appellees. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 632 F.3d 938 (2011) Facts: Gasoline retailers accused the OPEC member nations of fix pricing of crude oil and refined petroleum products in the US. The appellants argued that the district court mischaracterized their complaint as alleging a conspiracy
Premium Petroleum Saudi Arabia United States
I. Title: Brown v. Texas (No. 77-6673) II. Type of Case: a. This Supreme Court cases argues whether Brown (appellant) was validly convicted of refusing to comply with Police demands to stop and identify himself as it is a crime in the Texas Penal Code to deny identification on request when suspicion of crime has occurred. A violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02(a). III. Facts: a. Officer Venegas and Officer Sotelo of the El Paso Police Department were on patrol when they
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
Correctional Officer Gurrola interviewed the appellant on October 14‚ 2016. The appellant stated on September 28‚ 2016 at approximately 12 o’clock chow was delivered. The appellant stated he bit into his brownie cake and noticed a roach was stuck inside. The appellant stated he immediately informed Correctional Counselor Throop (CC) and Unit Manager Escarcega (UM). The appellant requested that a photo be taken and was advised the Warden would be notified. The appellant stated he is asking that the kitchen
Premium Food Nutrition Short story
95(2003)CLT273(SC)‚ 101(2002)DLT164(SC)‚ JT2002(9)SC619‚ (2003)1MLJ184(SC)‚ (2003)1SCC384‚ 2003(1)UJ331‚ 2003(2)WLN706 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided On: 29.11.2002 Appellants: Vikas Deshpande Vs. Respondent: Bar Council of India and Ors. Hon’ble Judges/Coram: V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan‚ JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Party in perso For Respondents/Defendant: V.B. Joshi‚ Adv. for Respondent No. 2 Subject: Civil Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Advocates
Premium Capital punishment Bar association Legal terms
The Appellant appealed the Department’s decision to deny her request for HCBS because they determined she does not meet eligibility criteria for any waiver program they administer. The appeal was untimely filed by the Appellant’s Representative due to her failure to be notified of the Department’s denial. The Appellant’s Representative clarified that she is only appealing the timely filing due to non-receipt of notice and the denial of the OBRA and Independence waivers. The Department’s Position
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States United States
1983 | Judgment Lord Scarman (delivering the Judgment of the Board) 1. Ever since its incorporation in 1950 River Estates Sdn Bhd the appellant‚ has been engaged commercially in the extraction of timber and in plantation in north-east Borneo. On 15 December 1973 the Director-General of Inland Revenue (“the Revenue”) served upon the appellant notices of additional assessment to income tax for the years of assessment 1968–72. The assessments were:— 1968 .... .... .... .... |
Premium Estates of the realm Income Source
TRANSFER Pursuant to Section 214‚ the capable of being transferred under the code namely; The whole‚ not partly of any alienated land. The whole‚ not partly of any undivided share in any alienated land. Any lease of alienated land Any charge Any tenancy exempt from registration Lease can transfer and didn’t register. Tenancy is exempt from register mean do not need to register‚ it is depend on the tenant want or not. The land transfer either is freehold or leasehold land‚ but must be done in WHOLE
Premium Bankruptcy Contract Lease
Procedure was Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act‚ 1872.2 The Appellant was charged and prosecuted for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. On appreciation of evidence available on record‚ Additional Sessions Judge‚ Banaskantha found the Appellant guilty for commission of the said offence and awarded him life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved thereof‚ Appellant filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of
Premium Court Appeal Jury
FACTS The appellant drove the vehicle in PC David Morris’s direction and stopped the vehicle with its front off-side wheel on David Morris’s left foot. David Morris said to the appellant‚ ‘Get off‚ you are on my foot!’ The appellant’s driving window was open. The appellant said ‘Fuck you‚ you can wait.’ The appellant then turned off the ignition. David Morris then said to the appellant several times‚ ‘Get off my foot!’ The appellant then said very reluctantly‚ ‘Okay‚ man‚ okay.’ The appellant thereafter
Premium Automobile
MANU/SC/0089/1954 Equivalent Citation: AIR1954SC364‚ [1954]25ITR449(SC)‚ [1955]1SCR393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided On: 01.04.1954 Appellants: Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. Vs. Respondent: The Government of Hyderabad Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Sudhi Ranjan Das‚ Bhagwati and B. Jagannadhadas‚ JJ. Subject: Direct Taxation Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Partnership Act - Section 4 Authorities Referred: Powell’s Law of Agency; Halsbury’s Laws of England - Hailsham
Premium Corporation Types of business entity