Holding The trial court found that the defedant was negligent as both attorney and officer and fined him $243,722.99. Musselman appealed this decision saying that he lacked the capacity to act as officer and/or attorney. Rationale The trial court found that their decision will be affirmed because not only did Atty Musselman have the capacity to work as attorney and officer but he did so and he did not inform the corporation that Hurt wanted to be ecused from all personal
Whites former fiancée. This would be the standard required in order for the plaintiff to recover under Indiana Law (Ind. Code Ann. 7.1-5-10-15.5). Furthermore, they stated that the act of crashing into the White’s car was not the “proximate cause” of the injuries to the plaintiff and the death of her husband but rather the result of a criminal act by Mr. Hard.
James Wetzel CRMJ 101-52 Online Jury Nullification-Article 1 Jury Nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict against the proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, or is given a lesser penalty, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. While this all seems great, jury nullification is a source of much debate in today’s society. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard or last resort again the wrongful punishment and imprisonment. While others often view it as a violation of the right of a jury and undermining that law.
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. After a jury returns a verdict, the losing party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for judgment now withstanding the verdict. The judge is asked to hold that there were not legally sufficient grounds to support the jury’s verdict and to either overturn the entire verdict or a portion of it. Courts preferred post– verdict motions to pre—verdict motions because, if an appeals court reverses a post verdict motion, there is no need to redo the entire trial. Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs.
In this situation, we would look at unilateral mistake which typically involves a material fact. “In general, a unilateral mistake does not afford the mistake party any right to relief from the contact” which “in other words, the contract is enforceable (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). There are two exceptions to where the contract may not be enforceable, “(1) if the other party to the contract knows or should have known that a mistake was made or (2) if the error was due to a substantial mathematical mistake in addition, subtraction, division, or multiplication and was made inadvertently and without gross negligence (intentional failure to perform a duty reckless disregard of the consequences)” (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). References Miller, W. L., & Hollowell, W. E. (2011). Business Law Text & Exercises Sixth Edition.
The argument is against those who committed theses crimes, they knew what they were doing was wrong and instead they continued to break the law. It does not support my position nor does it negate from it. I believe that these primary sources were not that reliable because they were just court case files. I think that no
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
Some argue that this rule encourages precision of drafting, however a counter argument is why would anyone be deliberately careless? Statutory interpretation also grants law making powers to judges, which defeats the point of parliamentary supremacy. In addition, the question of what is absurd or immoral and therefore allowing the plain words of a statute to be ignored is by necessity a subjective one, and so the interpretation will vary with the judge's background, upbringing, education, and beliefs; which will inevitably differ greatly from the mean at least some of the time. In Whitley v. Chappell (1868), it was illegal to impersonate any person entitled to vote. A dead person who was not entitled to vote, so therefore was acquitted.
Lifting the veil of incorporation or better still; "Piercing the corporate veil" means that a court disregards the existence of the corporation because the owners failed to keep one or more corporate requirements and formalities. The lifting or piercing of the corporate veil is more or less a judicial act, hence it's most concise meaning has been given by various judges. Staughton LJ, for example, in Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (No 1)29 defined the term thus: "To pierce the corporate veil is an expression that I would reserve for treating the rights and liabilities or activities of a company as the rights or liabilities or activities of its shareholders. To lift the corporate veil or look behind it, therefore should mean to have regard to the shareholding in a company for some legal purpose. "30 Young J, in Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd,31 on his part defined the expression "lifting the corporate veil" thus: "That although whenever each individual company is formed a separate legal personality is created, courts will on occasions, look behind the legal personality to the real controllers.