Micah Rondinone Project Part V The Weights of Discarded Garbage My original research was on the Tucson Garbage Project‚ which was a study done in 1973 by Dr. William Rathje in Tucson‚ Arizona. Dr. Rathje‚ also known as “Captain Planet” and the students from the University of Arizona studied the waste from Tucson residents in order to examine patterns of consumption. My original paper referred to a comparative analysis of the amount of discarded waste from one week. The purpose of the study
Premium Evidence Waste management Null hypothesis
Employment Opportunity Commission (EOOC) and hired an attorney‚ Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to pursue his case. Armed with a favorable report from an I/O psychologist‚ Dr. Marcy Josephs‚ Ms. Szymoniak is now attempting to reach a settlement with Palm Beach County’s legal representatives. Critical Issues ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence In order to establish a prima facie case against Palm Beach County‚ Mr. Zimpfer and his attorney would have to provide evidence that would meet certain requirements
Premium Prima facie Critical thinking Legal burden of proof
1. In the case of Hampton v. Snead State Community College (SSCC)‚ the one element that Hampton failed to establish of a prima facie case of racial discrimination was the forth element in the case. The forth element in the case stated‚ “SSCC treated similarly situated employees outside of Hampton’s protected class more favorably” (Hampton). According to the court‚ Hampton failed to establish the prima facie case of bring substantial evidence of employees of another race who were tried fairly. The
Premium Prima facie Arbitration Legal burden of proof
in reference to common design Subject: Law of Evidence Submitted To: Dr. K. Vidyullatha Reddy Submitted By: Mohammed Omer Farooq 3rd Year‚ 5th Semester Roll No: 2011-46 National Academy for Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law‚ Hyderabad Table of Contents Table of Cases Arul Raja v. State of T.N 9 Balmokond v. Emperor 3 Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor 2 Bhagwan Das Keshwani v. State of Rajasthan 8 Bhagwan Swarup
Premium Prima facie Jury Common law
evidence thoroughly. He not only looked at the situation through his eyes‚ but also through the young boy’s and witnesses spectrums. Davis was in no hurry to decide‚ which gave him time to really sit down and weigh out all the options and proof or non-proofs. He also did his own research by going to the boy’s neighborhood checking out the environment and purchasing a similar knife that was used in the murder‚ which was supposedly a one of kind and could not be purchased everywhere. By purchasing
Free Critical thinking Logic Evidence
M E M O Date : 28 June 2013 Subject : Accountable Officer Pursuant to Section 101 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1445[1] (PD 1445)‚ an accountable officer is one whose duty permits or requires the government officer possession or custody of government funds or property: “Section 101. Accountable Officers; Bond Requirement. — (1) Every officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be accountable
Premium Prima facie Legal burden of proof Evidence
[2013] MLJU 271 Kamalan a/l Shaik Mohd v Pendakwa Raya HIGH COURT (PULAU PINANG) YA ZAMANI BIN A RAHIM J RAYUAN JENAYAH NO 41A-51-05/2012 18 March 2013 Ismail bin Mohamad (Tamil Salvan Tenappan with him) (T Tenappan & Co) for the appellant. Suhaimi bin Ibrahim (Charanjit Singh a/l Mahinder Singh with him) (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the prosecution. YA Zamani Bin A Rahim J: GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] The appellant‚ a police sergeant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was
Premium Law Criminal law Legal burden of proof
MANU/SC/0138/1955 Equivalent Citation: AIR43 1955 Supreme Court 171 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeals Nos. 43 and 44 of 1955 Decided On: 07.10.1955 Appellants: Rawalpenta Venkalu and Anr. Vs. Respondent: The State of Hyderabad Hon’ble Judges: Bose‚ Jagannadhadas and Sinha‚ JJ. JUDGMENT Sinha‚ J. 1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of the same judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court dated the 15th April 1954 confirming those of the
Premium Appeal Supreme court Jury
Magistrate power to take cognizance of the offence After the stage of investigation is completed and the final report is forwarded by the police to competent magistrate‚ the second stage of fair trial begins that is taking of the cognizance of the offence by the magistrate. In this stage some of the necessary steps have to be take place. These steps are: - (i) to take cognizance of the offence‚ (ii) then the magistrate enquire that whether any prima facia case exist against the accused person
Premium Magistrate Supreme Court of the United States Supreme court
DIOXENOS B. SULIT ATTY. CHRISTINA ARIAS-SUMILONG I-D LEGAL WRITING 3/31/07 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II‚ CITY OF MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES‚ Plaintif-Appellee‚ -versus- GA. G.R. No. 123456 PEDRO SARMIENTO Y TORDECILLA Accused-Appellant‚ x------------------------------------------x APPELLEE’S BRIEF SUBMITTED BY OFFICE
Premium Criminal law Rape Manila