Disposition: It is ordered that the defendants are enjoined from conducting a show case hearing, revoking the plaintiffs’ license pursuant to these ordinances. Comments: The court did not address the issue of whether or not Westerly Town Council will be ordered to review their ordinances to ensure they are constitutional. I agree with the ruling of the court
On January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered reinstatement of the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. Issue: The issue of this case is whether Mrs., Mitchell’s actions had constituted misconduct to which caused her to disqualify from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is has not been defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico has adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”.
released Bannister from the agreement with respect to “all other companies than Mondi” and refused to pay his salary Inc., another Bemis competitor. He fi led a suit in a federal district court against his former employer. Do these facts show a material breach of contract? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Explain.
NCR Corporation v Korala Associates was a case that was concerning the unauthorized copying of computer software by KAL. Both of these companies had entered into a agreement in 1998, that stated that any dispute over software would be submitted for arbitration. NCR did not submit their complaints for arbitration; instead they tried to sue in District Court and after the District Court ruled in favor of KAL, they appealed the decision. The US Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of KAL. Both courts ruled that the arbitration agreement of 1998 was both procedurally and conscionable in its terms and enforceable, meaning that the dispute fell under the terms of the agreement.
Conclusion In this case the courts make it clear that there is absolutely no instance where documents related to a corporation or any person connected to the corporation would be able to rely upon the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. It is also clear that no person could appeal to the Fifth Amendment to try to avoid providing corporate documents that are in his or her possession even if providing the documents could possibly incriminate his or her own
Blood test confirmed no biological attachment, therefore, Fiege is not obligated to care for the alleged daughter. Reason: 1. Forbearance to sue for a lawful claim or demand is sufficient consideration for a promise to pay for the forbearance if the party of the forbearing had an honest intention to prosecute litigation which is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and which believed to be well founded. Boehm filed her claim with the honest intention to recover the monies which was promised to her if she forbear from filing a bastardy claim against Fiege. The formation of a contract created by both parties was legitimate showing no proof of fraud, deception, or
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008. The federal court denied his motion on February 14, 2008. The trial court ruled that the suitcase was abandoned, defendant did not express possession after learning its location, and since defendant abandoned the suitcase, he did not have an expectation of privacy in the suitcase or its contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on March 6, 2008. Defendant appealed his suppression hearing under his right to appeal.
does not constitute a court order sufficient to override the presumption of paternity. Likewise, we find that failure on the part of Darlene Romer to respond to a request for admission under Civil Rule 36 admitting that Richard Romer is not the biological father of R.M., does not constitute clear and convincing evidence to rebut paternity, in the opposite, the superior court finding that “the plaintiff is not the father of R.M. and owes no support” is clearly erroneous because it makes no mention of the standard of proof it used as opposed to that set out in AS 25.20.050 Legitimation by subsequent marriage, acknowledgment in writing, or
The Court of Appeals saw no justification legally for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII. In 1998, The United States Supreme Court declared that same-sex sexual harassment was actionable under Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination in the workplace (Perry & Fink,