II – Cases 8 & 10 Case 8: Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). The case involves Mr. Galindo’s wife as the plaintiff and her employer‚ Mr. Richard Clark‚ as the defendant. Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. Javier Galindo‚ the husband of the plaintiff‚ was sitting in his car in the driveway of Mr. Clark’s property waiting to pick up his wife‚ who worked as a housekeeper
Premium Theft Law Identity theft
time we’re talking about the same parties and circumstances- relating back By Defendant- Counter claims Rule 13‚ compulsory v. permissive counterclaims‚ both parties believe they are the plaintiff- determined by who gets to court first Leave behind process of joining claims between exact same parties Plaintiff sues one or more defendants‚ someone realizes that missing or not having the right party members Rule 20(a)- Persons who may join or be joined Mosley v. General Motors Corp. Mosley and
Premium Plaintiff Pleading Complaint
delay should be presented as damages because the breach by defendants will result in a higher financing cost. Also‚ plaintiffs strongly stress the breach of contract because they suffered costs and attorney’s fees as well as financing costs for the delay in acquiring a second mortgage obligation; Defendant’s delay should be calculated as damages for plaintiffs. On June 15‚ 2004‚ plaintiffs’ real estate attorney forwarded a time-of-the-essence letter to defendants‚ setting a closing date of June 25‚ 2004
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
said “..the decision shall not bind third person..” Moreover‚ this draft section 222/35 grants the power to the counsel to enforce the decision on behalf of the plaintiff and the member of the class. The member of the class only has the right to request his share but not to enforce individually. In present procedure‚ the counsel of the plaintiff will have the authority to do so only his client grants him the power. From the most different feature‚ I will now summarize the rest of the different
Premium Law United States Civil procedure
complex issue and the lawsuit outcome. Wal-mart Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Largest Case in US History Revives a Longstanding Debate The Wal-mart sexual discrimination lawsuit was filed ten years ago by three female employees. However‚ the plaintiffs and their lawyers have sought to expand it into a class-action suit on behalf of every woman who has worked for Wal-Mart at any time since December 1998 -- as many as 1.5 million. While they collected statements from 120 women alleging discrimination
Premium Gender Supreme Court of the United States Discrimination
Felthouse v Bindley From Wikipedia‚ the free encyclopedia Felthouse v Bindley Court Court of Common Pleas Citation(s) (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869; [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037 Transcript(s) Full text of judgment Judge(s) sitting Willes J‚ Byles J and Keating J Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35‚ is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one ’s offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
Case Review of Prohibition on Companies Purchasing Their Own Shares Name: Nabila Veronica Soh ID: 2011874814 Group: LWB06H Tutor: Pn. Nadia Omar Case Summary : AHT Properties Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v Tan Yee Hee & Ors [2010] MLJU 1597 The plaintiffs are suing the 3rd to 11th defendants who are shareholders in Syarikat Wakuba Sdn. Bhd. for specific performance under an agreement to purchase all shares of the 2nd defendant and for damages and other reliefs. The 1st defendant is sued because he
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
of the notice of demand sent by the solicitors of the plaintiff bank on 9 January 1988 and the subsequent statutory notice in Form 16D sent by the same party on 19 January 1988. The attacks mounted by the defendant company against the validity of the said notice of demand and the statutory notice in Form 16D are basically that (i) the sum mentioned in both the notices exceeds the actual sum owed and payable by the borrower and (ii) the plaintiff bank has not established their entitlement to default
Premium Plaintiff Civil procedure Defendant
274 citation omitted]. In other words‚ the plaintiffs claimed the defendants could not make an impartial decision as to whether to prosecute this action on behalf of the corporation since the defendants would face substantial personal liability if the shareholders were to prevail. Here‚ plaintiffs alleged that‚ “Defendants’ reckless stewardship of Veeco‚ particularly their failure to institute appropriate controls and
Premium Pleading Corporate governance Fiduciary
case From: Jamshid AKHMEDOV To: Therese KEELAGHAN Date: November 5‚ 2012 1) Relevant facts: Defendant: Edward Wycoff‚ 40 Defense attorney: Defendant acts as his own attorney Victims: Julie Rogers‚ 47 and Paul Rogers‚ 47 Plaintiff attorney: Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson Witness (also a Victim): Victims’ son Eric Rogers‚ 20 Witness’ attorney: Tedd W. Cassman Judge: Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John W. Kennedy Defendant Wycoff murdered
Premium United States Jury Civil procedure