SCHEDULE “A” 1. The Plaintiffs claim from the Defendants: (a) payment of the sum of $25‚000.00; (b) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sum of $25‚000.00 calculated pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act‚ R.S.O. 1990‚ c.C43‚ as amended; (c) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and (d) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. 2. The Plaintiff‚ Nayan Patel (“Nayan”) is an individual now residing in Barrie‚ Ontario. Nayan
Premium Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Balance sheet Depreciation
JUSTIN WILLIAM KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) Civil Action No. 11-CIV-012345 ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) Judge Julie James ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ANHEUSER-BUSCH To: Defendant Anheuser-Busch and its attorney‚ John Smith‚ 234 Main Street‚ Chicago‚ IL 60601 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff Justin William King demands answers to the following interrogatories
Premium Civil procedure Plaintiff United States
Imposing a legal burden upon a defendant will negate the principle of presumption of innocence. If a defendant has to prove their innocence than it would automatically and unconsciously bring up the issue that they were never considered innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence was first articulated in the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462‚ 461 where Viscount Sankey LC stated that: ‘Throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen‚ that it
Premium Law Human rights European Convention on Human Rights
Is that right? Defendant Lawyer: Yes‚ sir. He gave the speech to three teachers. Ten minutes before he gave his speech two teachers said that exact same things to him. “That speech is inappropriate‚ don’t give it.” Chief Justice: He wasn’t told by the principal? Defendant Lawyer: Well‚ the principal did not know that he was going to give the speech. Chief Justice: Did the teachers have the authority to stop him from giving the speech? Defendant Lawyer: Yes‚ they had the authority
Premium High school Education Supreme Court of the United States
By Reason of Insanity: Should Defendants with Traumatic Brain Injuries Be Held Accountable for Their Actions Carolynn Sargent Everest University ENC 1102-12 12/28/12 “Six weeks after getting his driver’s license‚ Christopher Tiegreen was in a car collision near his home in Gainesville‚ Ga. Tiegreen’s Isuzu Trooper flipped several times‚ causing severe head injuries. A month later‚ Tiegreen emerged from a coma a different person. The impact of the crash caused damage to the frontal lobe of his
Premium Traumatic brain injury Brain Concussion
Defense Exhibit A Parking ban sign Defense Exhibit B Bylaws of the village of empireville board of trustees Defense Exhibit C Village Board of Trustees Minutes Victoria Pat Parker (Cynthia) Jason A Chris Crangle (Alex) Patricia Cameron Curtis (Thasia) OPENING STATEMENT Good Afternoon your Honor‚ Imagine‚ that you were accused of having an ULTERIOR motive when you were sincerely serving someone? How would you feel? Yet‚ this is the situation of Mayor Alex Allen. Th
Premium Parking
Is It Really Libel and Defamatory? : Howard K. Stern‚ Plaintiff v. Rita Cosby and Hachette Book Group USA‚ Inc.‚ Defendants A country; particularly the United States‚ legal infrastructure is a key factor in the media ’s ability to fulfill their "watchdog" function. However‚ most of the 1990s had completely lacked a legal base that would allow non-governmental media to defend their newfound abilities to present alternative and often critical points of view. New legal rulings and laws passed
Premium
Consider the criminal liability of the defendant in the situation below and consider the defence of insanity to the offences that you find he has committed. Johnson could be held liable for Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This is unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm or malicious wounding with intent to cause some harm. There must be a break in the continuity of the skin for a D to be held liable for malicious wounding (JCC v Eisenhower). GBH was described as “serious”
Premium Legal terms Crime Reason
Case name‚ Citation‚ and Court: 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
Premium
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