The plaintiff‚ Donald Bradshaw‚ was seriously injured in an automobile accident. During this time‚ he was enrolled as a sophomore at Delaware Valley College and had been attending his class picnic. At the end of the picnic‚ he left as a passenger in Bruce Rawlings vehicle. Shortly after departure‚ Rawlings crashed his vehicle into a parked vehicle. Due to this collision‚ Bradshaw suffered serious injuries including a cervical fracture which caused quadriplegic paralysis. The plaintiffs alleged
Premium Alcoholic beverage Plaintiff University
execution of the deed‚ to anextent seriously to impair his mind‚ and who was so intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit to transact business‚ and entirely incapable of realizing‚ understanding‚ or attending to the transaction. ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor‚ or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction‚ where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Judgment
The assumption standard does not meet modern pleading standards because it allows plaintiffs to present a claim that is missing an essential element of due process. An initial question is what are modern pleading standards? Pleadings standard in the modern era have become stricter and require plaintiffs to show more than they might have in the past. In two cases‚ Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ‚ the Supreme Court expanded the scope of pleading requirements. The Supreme
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Supreme Court of the United States
and considering the content and general thought process of the entire radio program‚ the remarks may have been distasteful. However‚ to the reasonable listener‚ it would be viewed as an opinion and would not be viewed as an actual fact about the plaintiff. One’s physical attractiveness and desirability or lack thereof is‚ in fact‚ a matter of subjective opinion‚ even though under the circumstances it may not give rise to a qualified privilege. For more than a century‚ it has been widely recognized
Premium Complaint Pleading Plaintiff
proof to establish the impropriety of the decision is on those challenging it. In the case United States District court for the Southern District of New York 683F. Supp. 422; 1988 U.S. Dist.‚ the plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive and declaratory relief of fiduciary duty. The court denied plaintiffs motion without prejudice to renew because defendants’ Board of Directors acted in good faith and thus were entitled to the benefit of the business judgment rule in the adoption of its rights.
Premium Board of directors Fiduciary Stock
being distracted by her son‚who0 was misbehaving to do so. Issue: Did Ms. Smith have a duty to avoid the spill? Rule: The main objective of the Comparative Fault Act is to modify the common law rule of contributory negligence under which‚ a plaintiff who was only slightly negligent was barred from recovery. Under the Comparative Fault Act‚ each person whose fault contributed to the injury must bear their proportionate share of the total fault.( Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1‚ et seq.) (http://axilonlaw
Free Common law Law Tort
adviser of the plaintiff‚ Marciana Canon and about the same time‚ Felisa Nepomuceno‚ the other plaintiff‚ had an unsecured debt due her of 500 pesos from one Marcelo Leaño. The debtor proposed to give her a deed of conditional sale to a certain tract of land in consideration of 2‚000 pesos‚ she to be credited with 500 pesos on the purchase price and that to advance the balance of 1‚500 pesos; that knowing that the defendant had in his hands that amount of money‚ the property of her co-plaintiff‚ Marciana
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
TITLE OF THE CASE Gilford Motor Co. vs. Horne(1933)1Ch. 935 FACTS OF THE CASE Mr EB Horne was formerly a managing director of the Gilford Motor Co Ltd. He agreed in writing (clause 9) to not solicit customers of the company when he left employment. Then he was fired. He set up his own business and undercut their prices. Then he got legal advice saying that he was probably acting in breach of contract. So he set up a company‚ JM Horne & Co Ltd‚ in which his wife and a friend called Mr Howard were
Premium Appeal Contract Court
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY‚ FLORIDA HOWDY GOODNEIGHBOR‚ Plaintiff‚ v. GIANT HERCULES‚ Defendant. ______________________________________/ CASE NO. 09-CF-87654321 PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT 1. What is your full name as well as your current address; date of birth; marital status; driver’s license number and issuing state; and the last four digits of your social security number? 2. What is the name
Premium Insurance Pleading Plaintiff
Sivapakiam Krishnan (H. M. J. Shaharom & K. S. Wee) for the plaintiff Ng Chew Hor (Ng. Fan & Associates) for the fourth defendant Vernon Ong Lam Kiat‚ JC GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Affin Bank Berhad (the plaintiff) is suing Kumarasamy A/L Nadarajah (the 4th defendant) is on a guarantee for the sum of RM15‚550‚000.00 together with interests at 3.25% per annum above the Base Lending Rate on monthly rests from 1.2.2005 and costs. At the trial the plaintiff called Zakaria Bin Wan Saleh (PW1) a bank officer; the
Premium Contract Legal terms Bank