Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash.‚ 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999) Material Facts: Donna Vizcaino‚ Jon R. Waite‚ Mark Stout‚ Geoffrey Culbert‚ Lesley Stuart‚ Thomas Morgan‚ Elizabeth Spokoiny‚ and Larry Spokoiny sued on behalf of themselves and a court certified class against Microsoft Corporation and its various pension and welfare plans‚ including its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP)‚ and sought a determination that they were entitled even as independent
Premium Appeal Habeas corpus Appellate court
MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Kimberly D. Beard‚ Esq. From: Laura Gardner Re: Brandon Berry‚ State of Georgia v. Berry Date: February 27‚ 2013 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Child Was Not in the Defendant’s Care? II. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Elements Have Not Been Met? STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 16‚ 1998 Jamie June (Jamie) completed a detox program for alcohol abuse and she then started Alcoholics
Premium Jury Law Court
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
Case Brief Funk vs. United States Supreme Court of the United States 290 U.S. 371‚ 54 S. Ct. 212 (1933) Facts: Funk was tried twice and convicted both times in Federal District Court for conspiracy to violate the prohibition law. In the first appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the decision of the Federal District Court was reversed due to issues not applicable here. 46 F.2d 417. In both trials the defendant called upon his wife to testify on his behalf and she was excluded
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States
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
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
Issue: Barry Jewell was convicted of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class A felony. Also‚ Battery resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class C felony. Rule: The court used the case‚ Ellyson V. State‚ 603 N.E.2d 1369‚ 1373 (Ind. Ct.App.1992) In that case‚ Ellyson was charged with burglary because he broke into the house where him and his estranged wife lived with the intent to rape her. He was still charged with burglary even though he had the right to possession
Premium Felony Marriage Crimes
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Case Brief 1. CASE: Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 2. FACTS: A West Virginia jury issued a verdict against respondents (“Massey”) in the amount of $50 million. After the verdict‚ knowing that the West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal‚ Blankenship‚ the chairman‚ CEO and president of Massey contributed $3 million to help Benjamin run for office in that court in West Virginia’s 2004 judicial election. Benjamin won the election in a close
Premium Jury United States Supreme Court of the United States
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law