Lighting Co‚ the litigant was causing vibration and noise due to their activities. The defendant claim that the plaintiff should be limited to damages as the award of an injunction would deprive many Londoners of electricity. The court held that the discretion not to award the injunction therefore being exercised only in four exceptional circumstances that is where the injury to the plaintiffs legal right is small‚ is capable of being estimated in money terms‚ is one which can be adequately compensated
Premium Law Nuisance Plaintiff
Barber Maran and Another v. Ramana Goundan and Another Madras High Court Year:1897 Bench Strength:2 Facts: Defendant made a payment to a party that was an agent in that behalf of the plaintiff. It is not suggested that there was any fraud on the part of the defendants‚ who made the payment. Issue: 1.Whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the
Premium Common law Debt Defendant
Info 6027 Case Study Project One Softbank – theft of consumer data for extortion Please read the report published by the IAPP in the journal Privacy Advisor. Organisations do not normally volunteer any information about any sort of security breach unless they are compelled in some way. The incident described is no exception‚ it concerned Yahoo! BB and Softbank BB. Softbank of Japan offered broadband internet services across Japan through two subsidiaries – Yahoo! BB and Softbank BB. In
Premium Computer security Security Lawsuit
parties considerable time.. The Cost Due to the possible length and formal nature‚ a traditional case can cost $10‚000 and up. Aside from the obvious attorney fees‚ other costs such as depositions and expert witnesses can be very expensive. The plaintiff may be
Premium Dispute resolution Lawsuit Plaintiff
Although criminal trials sound a lot more interesting‚ the basic law I learned is based on civil law more‚ therefore I decided to observe the one and only civil trial on that day: “Chism v. Tri-State Construction” trialed by Judge Ken Schubert. The plaintiff‚ Geoffrey Chism‚ represented by attorneys Lindsay Halm and Thomas Breen. The defendant‚ Tri-State Construction Board of Executives including Ronald Agostino‚ Tom Agostino and Larry Agostino represented by attorneys Jillian Barron and Larry Agostino
Premium Jury Court Plaintiff
1. | Question : | Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. Write a memo to him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy’s case that impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia. | | | Student
Premium Abuse Human sexual behavior Case law
started. It is especially important to consider from a management perspective when determining the social and ethical responsibilities of businesses. We begin by discussing torts‚ who is responsible and the degree in which plaintiffs should be compensated. In this book‚ the plaintiffs claimed that three different companies acted irresponsibly in containing their waste and ultimately caused leukemia‚ along with a host of other disease and disorders‚ which led to the deaths of several children. In this
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Criminal law
base on soft ball (2) After Bourque had thrown the ball to first base‚ Duplechin ran at full speed into Bourque (3) As Duplechin ran into Bourque‚ he brought his left arm up under Bourque’s chin 2. procedural history Plaintiff‚ Jerome Bourque‚ Jr.‚ filed this suit to recover damages for personal injuries received in a softball game. Made defendants were Adrien Duplechin‚ a member of the opposing team who inflicted the injuries‚ and Duplechin’s liability insurer‚ Allstate
Premium Baseball Insurance Tort
SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT VS. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CASE NO. 99-CA-201 Case Briefing 1. Parties: Identify the plaintiff and the defendant. a. SANDRA MITCHELL‚ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT b. FRIDAYS‚ ET AL.‚ DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 2. Facts: Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case. a. On April 11‚ 1996‚ Appellant Sandra Mitchell was having dinner at Appellee Friday’s restaurant. Appellant was eating a fried clam strip when she bit into a hard substance
Premium Appeal Law Civil procedure
2009-CA-1303. Court of Appeal of Louisiana‚ Fourth Circuit. March 31‚ 2010. 1. FACTS: Parody Productions‚ LLC is a company that sale his playing cards over the internet. The product portrays well-known players from a sports team’s history. The plaintiff in this suit‚ Ronald Swoboda‚ is included in the New York Mets Hero Deck. Swoboda claims that he has never given Parody permission to use his image. He further contends that through his attorney he sent Parody a cease and desist letter. Parody refused
Premium Jurisdiction Law United States