Sandy Cheng CASE BRIEFS Interhandel Case (Switz. v. U.S.)‚ 1959 I.C.J. 6 (Mar. 21) Case Facts The Interhandel case was brought before the Court by Switzerland on October 2nd‚ 1957 to declare that the United States was under an obligation to restore its assets which had been vested in the United States from 1942. In 1946‚ US and Switzerland entered an agreement called the Washington Accord that the US will unblock Swiss assets in the US. Interhandel is a Swiss company entered in the Commercial
Premium United States United States Declaration of Independence
from harm. In the fact that she did not exercise this duty‚ she then breached this duty. The breaching of this duty of care resulted in the actual causation of the facts that led to the plaintiffs Jim’s injuries. Rule of Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur. This case falls under the rule of
Premium Tort Law Tort law
College Nandanam‚ Chennai - 600 035. Reviewers Dr. D. Mony Reader in Zoology R. M. Vivekananda College Mylapore Chennai - 600 004. Dr. D. Sudarsanam Reader and H O D Dept. of Zoology Loyola College‚ Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 034. Authors Tmt. V. M. Gayathri Rani P. G. T. in Zoology Govt. Girls Higher Sec. School Ashok Nagar Chennai - 600 0083. Price : Rs. This book has been prepared by The Directorate of School Education on behalf of the Government of Tamilnadu. This book has been printed
Premium Species Organism
Case Analysis for SOWK 718 Unusual Appeal Introduction This case takes place in a meeting between employees of the Florida Project for Human Justice at the Florida State Prison. Diane Epps a fifty-five-year-old Caucasian woman‚ Executive director‚ Joe Moran‚ the other lead attorney (only African American staff)‚ Cynthia Sanders a petite 28-year-old Caucasian woman‚ the mitigation investigator‚ and an accountant‚ Jose Arnada‚ a thirty-four Mexican American man; the client‚ was sentenced the death
Premium Crime Capital punishment Murder
Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: In March 1963‚ a kidnapping and sexual assault happened in Phoenix‚ Arizona. On March 13 Ernesto Miranda‚ 23‚ was arrested in his home‚ taken to the police station‚ recognized by the victim‚ and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. It included a typed disclaimer‚ also signed by Miranda‚ stating that he had “full knowledge
Premium
The 11th hour Story of the film film is preceded by the introduction of the environmental problems that plagued the world today. This introduction is intended to give an overview to the viewers about the negative impacts caused by human activities that are less responsible for the stability of the environment in general. Then proceed with the analytical discussion about things that appear in and around the environmental issue‚ and ended with optimistic statements proposed to raise the confidence
Premium Fossil fuel Energy development Sustainability
WILLIAM MARBURY V. JAMES MADISON‚ SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES 1803 5 U.S. 137‚ U.S. Supreme Court‚ 11-24 Feb. 1803 Facts: The PETITIONER‚ William Marbury‚ was appointed by outgoing president of the United States John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Thomas Jefferson‚ the newly elected president ordered not to deliver commissions to newly appointed judges‚ including the PETITIONER‚ making him unable to assume office. PETITIONER asked the Supreme Court to issue
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Marbury v. Madison
Re: Brief of Appellant: 42 USC § 1983 Application to Employment Dismissal Case II. The District Court erred in disregarding Mason County District Attorney’s Office involvement with respect to the firing of Mr. Brady‚ an independent contractor‚ who was fired in retaliation to his comments criticizing the Mason County District Attorney’s Immigration policy‚ and in concluding that the Pickering test only protects full-time government employees. The District Court incorrectly held that
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
Ochampaugh v. Seattle 588 P. 2d 1351 (Wash. 1979) Facts Ordinary pond owned by the city Popular with area residents for fishing and swimming The two boys were familiar with the pond and had gone there before. Neither boy could swim. There were no warning signs around the pond. The pond‚ while man-made‚ was in existence before the city purchased the land. Issue Was the pond a “trap” or extraordinarily dangerous enough to render it an “attractive nuisance” to children and thus create
Premium Debut albums Body of water Tort
Case Brief for: Obergefell v. Hodges‚ 576 U.S. (2015). Facts: Groups of the same sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio‚ Kentucky‚ Michigan‚ and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriages that occurred in jurisdiction that provide for such marriages. James Obergefell (plaintiffs) in each case argued that the states statutes violated Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the
Premium Marriage Same-sex marriage Homosexuality