Illusory Promise | You be the Judge Case Study An illusory promise sounds like a promise or commitment‚ but is not really a promise or commitment to do anything. Because it does not bind the maker to do anything‚ it may not be treated as consideration to establish a contract. Culbertson v. Brodsky Culbertson had listed real estate for sale. Brodsky & Culbertson signed an option contract. Option document: - Brodsky delivers $5‚000 check to bank; - Bank holds
Premium Contract Contract law Law
Case: Brandenburg V. Ohio Year: 1969 Facts: Clarence Brandenburg‚ a leader of an Ohio affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan‚ asked a reported to attend a KKK rally and cover the event. The reporter attended with a camera crew and filmed the rally that took place. Twelve white hooded figures‚ including that of Brandenburg’s‚ were seen with a wooden cross that was burned‚ and Brandenburg the said‚ “We’re not an revengent organization‚ but if our President‚ our Congress‚ and our Supreme Court‚ continues to
Premium United States Ku Klux Klan Southern United States
King v. Burwell and Judicial Decision-Making Process The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell surrounded the challenge of provision to the Affordable Care Act. The key question the case focused on was whether Obamacare authorized federal tax subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through a state exchange. The challenger‚ King‚ argued the way the law was written can’t allow for states to subsidized insurance through a federal-run exchange. They argued that insurance subsides
Premium United States Constitution United States Law
Case Study: Kim v. Son To summarize the case of Kim v. Son‚ Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations‚ which eventually failed‚ and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad‚ he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood‚ stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out‚ when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim‚ so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge
Premium Common law Contract Law
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
CASE ANALYSIS Virginia V. Black In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate‚ and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
upheld in regards to Riggs et al v. Palmer case because one should not be granted inheritance by murdering one’s ancestor. For this reason‚ the New York Court of Appeals has decided on a naturalistic approach‚ which has deemed Elmer Palmer guilty for murdering his grandfather‚ thereby prohibiting Palmer from getting anything from his grandfather’s will. This essentially means that the court argues that judges use their morals in order to determine the outcome of cases. Therefore‚ rejecting the idea
Premium
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially‚ the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through
Premium American Civil War African American Slavery
controversial five to four decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case of Ricci vs DeStefano raises the uncomfortable but common question of how far will employers go to favor one race over another? In other words‚ discrimination was at play in the case‚ in a scenario that will be unexpected to readers. The case of Frank Ricci vs. John DeStefano was established through an invalid act in the case of firefighters‚ promoting firefighters to be precise. The case began in the city of New Haven‚ Connecticut
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1964