Carol and Gary Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League & a. Strafford No. 2001-457 Briefed by Elizabeth Taylor Submitted: July 26‚ 2002 Opinion Issued: September 30‚ 2002 Basic Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs‚ Carol and Gary allege that on September 13‚ 1998‚ Carol Allen was injured while participating in a recreational softball game‚ while she was running to first base. She was hit in the head by the shortstop of the opposing team. This game was an adult and slow pitch softball
Free
Justin Jethroe Ms. Allen Intro to Corrections April 12‚ 2013 Roper v. Simmons U. S. Supreme Court March 1‚ 2005 543 U.S. 551 Statement of Facts This case in Fenton‚ Missouri involves 17 yrs. old Christopher Simmons born in 1993. Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer were Christopher Simmons friends and accomplices. Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital murder along with Charles Benjamin. The plan was to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering‚ tying up Shirley
Premium Capital punishment Roper v. Simmons Crime
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
said that even though Cindy landed near a flowerbed he did not know there were bricks in the yard. Koppersmith was charged with murder and convicted of reckless manslaughter. On appeal The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back to the trial court because Koppersmith was denied the right to testify about his intentions. He went to retrial and was convicted of reckless manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction to the Alabama Court
Premium Jury Appeal Court
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
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Ann. Section(s) 19-12-101‚ the "criminal attempt" statute‚ the trial court affirmed the juvenile court order and sentenced the girl to the Department of Youth development for an indefinite period. The issue in this case is to determine whether the defendant ’s action in this case constitute a "substantial step" toward the commission of second degree murder under the new statue. The "substantial step" issue has not yet been
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
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
Class 3 Anti-trust Laws Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself”
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm. Holdings: the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $2800. Rationale: the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone. The case was a case of torts and it related to the assult and battery which the defendant should pay money for the plaintiff. The defendant has no proof of any other hurt‚ and the medical testimony seems to have been agreed that this touch or kick was
Premium Contract