Capital Public Radio‚ Inc. 88 Cal. App. 4th 33 (2001) CHARLES STARZYNSKI‚ PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT‚ v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO‚ INC.‚ DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT ISSUE: 1. Whether Starzynski was wrongfully discharged from his position. 2. Whethe Starzynski ‘s discharge was constructive. RULE: 1. “judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c). A defendant or
Premium Employment Termination of employment Contract
July 31‚ 1953 CHARLES F. WOODHOUSE‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ vs. FORTUNATO F. HALILI‚ defendant-appellant. Tañada‚ Pelaez & Teehankee for defendant and appellant. Gibbs‚ Gibbs‚ Chuidian & Quasha for plaintiff and appellant. LABRADOR‚ J.: On November 29‚ 1947‚ the plaintiff entered on a written agreement‚ Exhibit A‚ with the defendant‚ the most important provisions of which are (1) that they shall organize a partnership for the bottling and distribution of Mision soft drinks‚ plaintiff to act as industrial
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Defendant
Case Study 2 Procedural History The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed. Both of the Defendants argued that the oral contract was unenforceable by law and the damages were also not calculated correctly. Facts Plaintiff Wendling‚ who was a farmer and stockman‚ met Defendant Puls‚ who was a cattle
Premium Contract
and injuring the Plaintiff and damaging the Plaintiff‚ which added injury to the Pliainff’s existing Physical Disability. The Defendants elected to ignore the line of verbal communication and warring’s from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife that the Plaintiff already had a disability and did not want to risk further injuries. The Defendant’s actions showed gross negligence‚ non-reasonable moving practices‚ lying to the Plaintiff‚ which constitutes fraud‚ total disregard for Plaintiff’s
Premium Death Morality Love
invalid‚ following lord denning’s decision in D&C builders V Rees and was developed in later cases such as the sibeon and sibotre and the Atlantic Baron. In this case the plaintiffs took delivery of the ships in name and 8 months later they sought to recover on the basis in inter alia‚ economic duress. It was held the plaintiffs action failed as the delay in seeking recovery amounted to affirmation of the contract and therefore lost the right to rescission. There is a difficulty in distinguishing
Premium Plaintiff Money Contract
Hyun Lee Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services -- Plaintiff This is yet another case that concerns the standard for summary judgment in an antitrust controversy. The principal issue here is whether a defendant’s lack of market power in the primary equipment market precludes — as a matter of law — the possibility of market power in derivative aftermarkets. Eastman Kodak Company manufactures and sells photocopiers and micrographic equipment. Kodak also sells service and replacement parts
Premium Photographic film Photography
SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CASE NO. 99-CA-201 Case Briefing 1. Parties: Identify the plaintiff and the defendant. a. SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT b. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 2. Facts: Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case. a. On April 11‚ 1996‚ Appellant Sandra Mitchell was having dinner at Appellee Friday’s restaurant. Appellant was eating a fried clam strip when she bit into a hard substance
Premium Appeal Law Civil procedure
MARGARET JEAN McBRIDE et al.‚ Plaintiffs and Appellants‚ v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY‚ Defendant and Respondent. 130 Cal. App. 4th 518; 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287; 2005 Cal. * COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA‚ SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT‚ DIVISION EIGHT Key Facts: * A. Board of Accountancy has a purpose to protect consumers by disciplining certified public accountant that are not meeting the board’s standards. B. The individual appellants were CPAs and partners of KPMG
Premium
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
MARSDEN‚ ) ) Plaintiff‚ ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN NMN DOE‚ ) ) Cause No.: Defendant. ) ) Division: Serve Defendant at: ) ) Missouri Division of ) Employment Security ) Claims Department ) 505 Washington Avenue ) St. Louis‚ Missouri 63101 ) ) Serve between 9:00 a.m. and ) 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday ) PETITION FOR DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY COMES NOW Plaintiff‚ MARY MARSDEN‚ and for
Premium Law Appeal Jury