Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action. In this case, the wife claimed that the husband was estopped, or prevented from paying her £100 per year although he promised her to make the payment. The wife’s claim failed. • According to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor and Mance LJ,
FACTS this lawsuit was brought to the courts for a second time as the plaintiff alleged that because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The first appeal on this case the defendant court affirmed judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The district court found that the plaintiff had not sustained his burden of showing that this was abuse. So the plaintiff appealed. ISSUE the district court stated that the books the plaintiff wanted was not necessary for the practice of Cooper’s faith.
Q: The Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon the plaintiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial? After the cases have been presented, but before the case goes to the jury, a party may request that the court enter a judgment and it’s favor because there is not legally sufficient evidence on which a jury cannot find for the other party. The defense is more likely to prevail on such motion. That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict.
The courts however disagreed. The courts considered statutes to address the disagreement. Code § 64.1-16.3(A) specifically addresses the period of abandonment that is relevant to a claim for an elective share: If a husband or wife willfully deserts or abandons his or her spouse and such desertion or abandonment continues until the death of the spouse, the party who deserted the deceased spouse
While Mrs. Muliaga was in the hospital, her husband attempted to make arrangements to payments towards the overdue electric bill. However, due to the “Privacy Act,” he was not able to make the arrangements because his name was not on the account (Eweje, G., & Wu, M. 2010). Therefore, since her husband could not make the
Not many if you really think about it. Unfortunately, these men will never been seen as the child’s legal parents in the eyes of the state. In the second article, a Health Administrator is trying to appeal a case that ruled in favor of same-sex adoption. He feels that, “couples all together whether they are married or civil union,” (Erwin, 2013, p3), should be banned not only from adoption but also from becoming a foster parent. He stated that it is a, “danger to the child and their well-being,” (Erwin, 2013, p1).
Case Brief November 17, 2013 LSTD506 Property Law Professor Moneymaker Case: Noone v. Price, 298 S.E.2d 218 (1982) Reference: Barlow Burke (2010). Foundations of Property Law (3rd Edition) Pg. 210. Retrieved from the American Public University Online Resource Summary: A married couple (the plaintiffs) realized their hilltop home was sliding down a hill and believed the sliding was originated from the hydrostatic pressure of the adjacent landowner’s (defendant) deteriorated retaining wall (Barlow Burke, 2010, Pg.125). The defendant however, believes he isn’t at fault because the plaintiff(s) are responsible for their own property.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Denise Fogel LAW 421 June 3, 2013 Chontele McIntyre Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? After reviewing the scenario, it is evident that the two parties concerned never had a contract. In the scenario, the parties came to an agreement just three days ahead of the conclusion of the 90-day term set in the original negotiation offer (Melvin, 2011). The original negotiation offer states there would be no distribution agreement until it was in writing (Melvin, 2011). BTT’s manager posted an e-mail to Chou describing the conditions of a distribution contract; however, this does not make the email an agreement until the parties both sign it.
He argues, however, that grandmother failed to establish the other threshold qualification under O.R.S § 109.121(1)(a)(B), because she did not demonstrate that he denied reasonable opportunities to visit the child. The requirement in O.R.S § 109.121(1)(a)(B), that a grandparent establish that the custodian has denied him or her a reasonable opportunity to visit with the subject child seeks to strike a balance between a custodial parent's right to make decisions about what visitation is in a child's best interests and visitation by the
Another similarity was that they both had to deal with marriages. Both were issues that people now in days still don’t agree on which same sex marriages and interracial marriages. The difference in these two court cases was that in the Goodrigde v. Department of Public Health was that the Fourteenth Amendment was not on their side. That is where the ruling came out that the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. It was said that the marriage didn’t guarantee “the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” Also it was said that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution.