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
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
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
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
Carol and Gary Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League & a. Strafford No. 2001-457 Briefed by Elizabeth Taylor Submitted: July 26‚ 2002 Opinion Issued: September 30‚ 2002 Basic Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs‚ Carol and Gary allege that on September 13‚ 1998‚ Carol Allen was injured while participating in a recreational softball game‚ while she was running to first base. She was hit in the head by the shortstop of the opposing team. This game was an adult and slow pitch softball
Free
Justin Jethroe Ms. Allen Intro to Corrections April 12‚ 2013 Roper v. Simmons U. S. Supreme Court March 1‚ 2005 543 U.S. 551 Statement of Facts This case in Fenton‚ Missouri involves 17 yrs. old Christopher Simmons born in 1993. Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer were Christopher Simmons friends and accomplices. Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital murder along with Charles Benjamin. The plan was to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering‚ tying up Shirley
Premium Capital punishment Roper v. Simmons Crime
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself” is the product that sports offers to customers. * Restraints on competition
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm. Holdings: the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $2800. Rationale: the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone. The case was a case of torts and it related to the assult and battery which the defendant should pay money for the plaintiff. The defendant has no proof of any other hurt‚ and the medical testimony seems to have been agreed that this touch or kick was
Premium Contract