WILLIAMS V THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] 248 CLR 156 I INTRODUCTION Williams v The Commonwealth is an excellent example of a significant turning point in Australian Constitutional history. It challenged Executive power‚ the capacity the Commonwealth had to spend public money‚ and its’ power to enter into contracts without the authorisation of Parliament . The breadth of Executive power is covered under s61 of the Constitution‚ and describes activities which the executive can carry out . The Williams
Premium
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
promises cannot be imposed. In Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth case‚ Placer Development had imported timber Australia and expected to get the payment of subsidy promised by the Commonwealth Government. The government would pay a subsidy to companies that imported timber products into Australia. The payment had been made then ceased. Placer Development wanted to enforce payment of the subsidiary to court. The issue was whether the Commonwealth Government promised to provide subsidy was lawfully
Premium Contract Contract law Offer and acceptance
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Reports/1990/Volume 1/COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v MIDFORD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ANOR - [1990] 1 MLJ 475 - 9 February 1990 4 pages [1990] 1 MLJ 475 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v MIDFORD (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD & ANOR SUPREME COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) HASHIM YEOP A SANI CJ (MALAYA)‚ MOHAMED YUSOFF AND GUNN CHIT TUAN SCJJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 05-45-89 9 February 1990 Criminal Procedure -- Search and seizure -- Application for order to return documents and to restrain from
Premium Common law Court Law
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for fraud and breaches of warranty. Summary judgement granted in favor of defendant by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material facts exist. The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant‚ a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty‚ but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a
Premium Automobile Law English-language films
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
Patrick Haines JLC 101 Prof. Edelson 9/11/14 Hawkins v McGee case brief Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee‚ 84 N.H. 114‚ 146 A. 641.(1929) Facts: Mr. Hawkins‚ the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee‚the defendant‚ in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury