According to Fish, it is the Supreme Court’s job to correct any wrong that was done in the past. Mistakes that are just now recognized can sometimes be fixed by changing the law. Fish says that it is not his place to answer the question of whether or not an apology should be given; he is simply stating that their reasons for resisting are not reasonable. If apology continues to be a reparation to fix all of the mistakes that the courts have made, it will be “nothing more than a ‘feel good’ gesture” (469). Apology will eventually lose its sincerity and be almost ceremonial like.
To show this, the plaintiff claimed that because the defendant knew the plaintiff was Caruso’s next of kin; a duty to the plaintiff was therefore formed. The defendant filed a motion to strike the negligence claim on the grounds that it failed to state a cognizable legal duty and failed to allege facts to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. (More Law) They also argued that the alleged facts did not show negligence on their part. They instead felt the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, in its view, were fatally flawed because they failed to establish the existence of any legal relationship that would have imposed on the defendant a duty of care to the plaintiff. (More Law) In Del Core’s view, she felt the defendant’s untimely manner in informing her of her brother’s death would foreseeably hinder her from making proper arrangements for her brother’s burial.
Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
- The court must decide if the advertisement constituted an offer, and if the mistake is genuine and can be grounds to avoid the contract due to a unilateral mistake of fact. What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations) - The court first looked at whether an advertisement can be considered an offer. The court differentiates between advertisements that are in fact invitations for individuals to negotiate an offer, and advertisements that ask for a specific action without further communication and leave nothing for negotiation. The first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
I would think that if a judge knowingly accepts a plea agreement knowing that the defendant is not admitting that he or she is guilty, and does not believe that the defendant is taking the plea out of an admission of guilt should not agree to the plea. At least with a trial a person has the
Because of his conduct he did not provide her a fair trial in her custody petition. For this reason Schmidt is justified in filing an appeal, outlining the judges behavior, and allowing the court to review her case and give a fair
They also argued that the note instructing the plaintiff to start work was a proposition rather than an agreement and that it should have been accepted by the plaintiff before either party could be bound by a contract. The appellate court found that indeed the trial court judge had made an error and ruled in favour of the defendant. The appellate court ruled in favour of the defendant on the basis that any offer has to be accepted by an appropriate act. The plaintiff had
The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The question in this case is that did the defendant in this circumstances, and evidence had a duty to provide the security against any criminal act as the one that happened? So we
ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages? It is the responsibility of the trial judge, in the first instance, to determine whether the case is appropriate for punitive damages, i.e. whether the question of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury.' The main focus of that determination is the nature of the defendant's conduct. The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others.