said that even though Cindy landed near a flowerbed he did not know there were bricks in the yard. Koppersmith was charged with murder and convicted of reckless manslaughter. On appeal The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back to the trial court because Koppersmith was denied the right to testify about his intentions. He went to retrial and was convicted of reckless manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction to the Alabama Court
Premium Jury Appeal Court
Marbury vs. Madison What was the case: Marbury was a soon-to-be appointed justice of the peace when Adam’s presidency came to an end‚ resulting in his successor‚ Thomas Jefferson denying credibility of the appointments because they were not completed during the time of Adam’s presidency. Jefferson’s Secretary of State‚ James Madison‚ was asked to allow the commissions. Decision: The Supreme Court denied Marbury’s writ of mandamus and he was denied the commissions. Reasoning: Congress cannot expand
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Marbury v. Madison
must have a valid interest to protect; (2) the geographical restriction must not be overly broad; and (3) a reasonable time limit must be imposed. Covenants not to compete that arise out of a employment relationship are only upheld by courts in cases where the covenatee provided special training or
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
to obtain regular raises and bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and
Premium Jury Law Tort
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
Ann. Section(s) 19-12-101‚ the "criminal attempt" statute‚ the trial court affirmed the juvenile court order and sentenced the girl to the Department of Youth development for an indefinite period. The issue in this case is to determine whether the defendant ’s action in this case constitute a "substantial step" toward the commission of second degree murder under the new statue. The "substantial step" issue has not yet been
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Class 3 Anti-trust Laws Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * 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”
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
BRIEFING A CASE EXAMPLE Student Name: Class: Case Number: PATTERSON V. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164 (1989) FACTS: Patterson‚ a black female‚ worked for the McLean Credit Union as a teller and file coordinator for ten years. Patterson alleges that when she was first interviewed for her job‚ the supervisor‚ who later became the president of McLean Credit Union‚ told her that she would be working with all white women and they probably would not like working with her because she
Premium United States Race Black people
(Nadel v. Burger King Corp.‚ 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2144) Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Combined Source: Company Profiles and Directories;US Law Reviews and Journals‚ Combined;Federal & State Court Cases - After 1944‚ Combined;Newspaper Stories‚ Combined Papers Project ID: 7 of 8 DOCUMENTS CHRISTOPHER NADEL‚ by and through his next friend‚ BRENDA NADEL
Free Product liability