or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance." In the case of Kathy I. Palmer‚ Petitioner/Appellee‚ v. Sydney N. Palmer‚ Respondent/Appellant‚ Sydney (husband) referenced the above statute when filing for termination of spousal maintenance. The court had to consider whether a specified end date in the Decree took precedence over the general interpretation of the law. Facts of the Case: Palmer v. Palmer The facts of this case are as follows: The marriage between Palmer and Palmer was dissolved
Premium United States Marriage Employment
Week 2 Case Summary For reference file # 8402 date issued January 17‚ 2013 Indexed as MacDonald v. Najafi and another (No.2) 2013 BCHRT 13 Facts The case I picked was heard on June 18 to19‚ 2012 in front of Murray Geiger Adams who is a member of the tribunal. The claimant is Ms. Macdonald‚ who is a university grad that moved to Vancouver from Calgary. The respondents are Mr. Najafi and his company Sign-A-Rama based in Vancouver. Mr. Najafi’s has adult children and is in his 60’s lived
Premium Discrimination Vancouver
Case Critique: Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v Nattrass [1972] A.C. 153 The Case of Tesco Supermarket Ltd v Natrass is a well-known case based on the Trade Description Act (1968). The case was about a well-known supermarket firm (Tesco Ltd) and a customer‚ Mr. Coane an old pensioner. Tesco had a special offer for the sale of Radian washing powder‚ which was advertised on posters displayed in stores. The normal price of the product was 3s 11d and they were selling it for 2s 11d. Miss Rogers‚ shop assistance
Premium United Kingdom Tesco Law
On-Boarding‚ Socialization‚ Retention and Down-Sizing Chern’s Department Store Case Study # 5 Selection and Placement-004016: BUS522004016*201003 Presented To Dr. Ronda Jones‚ Ph.D. March 14‚ 2010 By Jacqueline R. Jones Introduction Chern’s has recently hired two new sales associates and have a need for an on-boarding and socialization strategy. Because organizations invest money in hiring new employees‚ the company has a need to get new hires off to a good start but need help doing so. Because
Premium Employment Learning Management
Case: Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 Two shareholders of a company brought action against directors of the company for misapplication and improper use of the company’s property. The court held that as the injury complained of was injury to the company and not to the members. As such the members could not take action. Only the company had the right to sue. Case:In the case of Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd. (1967) QdR 561; The company had a husband and a wife as its only shareholders
Premium Death Share Life
value of an individual’s property. In order to exercise this jurisdiction‚ the plaintiff must have seized and attached the property. In an effort to expand jurisdiction‚ the court instituted the minimum contacts test. This test was expanded by Hess v. Pawloski‚ when a Massachusetts court determined that due his activities within the state‚ a nonresident of Massachusetts was still subject to the court’s jurisdiction‚ regarding a suit for a traffic accident. The court held that use of a state’s highways
Premium Jurisdiction Civil procedure
C.Richmond v. Croson(1989) D.The case deals with the city Council of Richmond passing a law that made is so companies that had construction contracts with the city had to subcontract at least 30 percent of their business to a business that has minority ownership. This lead to the J.A. Croson Company losing a contract because the company does not have a minority owner. This lead to the company starting a suit against Richmond. E. Is the law passed by Richmond breaching the fourteenth amendment’s equal
Premium High school Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
of the Motor Vehicle to the Seller A distinction between voluntary delivery and involuntary delivery of the motor vehicle is essential to further clarify the context of unlawful deprivation in this thesis. The case of Aznar v. Yapdiangco[ G.R. No. L-18536‚ March 31‚ 1965] elucidates a case wherein the delivery of the movable property is involuntary‚ and is therefore considered as stolen
Premium Common law Common law Property
Charter Case Analysis: Vriend v. Alberta 1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual. 2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA. 3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated
Premium
bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death‚ Dr. Samuel Sheppard complained that the press prevented him from having a fair trial. The case then was transferred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States‚ and has 9 justices. It takes audiences with cases that involve the constitution‚ federal laws‚ treaties‚ or foreign ambassadors. The case Sheppard v. Maxwell was called to the Supreme Court because of an issue with the Constitution in a lower court. November 1‚ 1965‚ Sheppard
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution