as a whole” test laid down by Lindley MR in Allen as inappropriate in the context of competing rights and interests of shareholders.18 The court drew a distinction between two different types of constitutional alterations. For alterations not involving “expropriation of shares or of valuable proprietary rights attaching to shares” it is sufficient if the special resolution is passed regularly, is not ultra vires, not beyond any purpose contemplated by the constitution nor oppressive.19 With respect to alterations that do involve expropriation of shares, or valuable proprietary rights attached to shares, different considerations apply. The majority laid down a twopronged test, holding that amendments to the constitution permitting expropriation are only permissible if: • the power is exercisable for a proper purpose; and • its exercise will not operate oppressively in relation to minority shareholders.20 Ibid at 386. Contra this reasoning see Brett W King, “Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and Minority Shareholder Protection” (1996) 21 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 895 at 907. 13 Vanessa Mitchell, “Gambotto and the Rights of Minority Shareholders” (1994) 6 Bond Law Review 92 at 102.
The Supreme Court stated that the statue did not meet the states goal of preventing breaches of peace because there was already a Texas statute which prohibited all breaches of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute was inconsistent with the first amendment and they got rid of the statute. 7.) Difference between case law and statutory law? Focus on how case law and statutory laws are created, the
(US Courts, n.d.) The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malleys Tavern claim that there is no actual knowledge of visible intoxication from the bartender. 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). The defendants also claim that the wreck between Mr. White and Mr. Hard is not the proximate cause of death but is a criminal act on behalf of Mr. Hard.
He authorized the charging of his credit card, The TV Corporation International charged the credit card. Subsequently, The TV Corporation International tried to avoid handing over the domain name to Lim using several pretexts like there was an e-mail error, the minimum bid amount had not been bid for and other such reasons. Issues of Law being raised are accepting to bid on the online auction and paying through the credit card the sum requested by the seller, is there an enforceable contract? Can the seller be sued for breach of contract? Procedural history is the trial court dismissed the case because the court held that since the domain offered and the one accepted were "different' there was no contract formed.
The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us's alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand. The Court's 132 page decision provides a window into the negotiation of a highly complex transaction, in which the parties have competing visions of the structure of the transaction, and settle on contractual language that does not fully express those visions, or resolve the parties' conflict. In resolving this dispute, the Court elected not to base its determination on the literal meaning of the words ultimately accepted by each side. Instead, it strove to find their intentions in entering into this Agreement, and to give effect to those intentions. In so doing, the Court found that it was the parties' intention, under their agreement, to make Toys R Us the exclusive toy retailer allowed to market on Amazon.com.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe  2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible. DISPOSITION: - Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. J.Black filed a dissenting opinion. J. Marshall didn't participate in the vote. J.Stewart wrote "one who shuts the door behind him, pays tikes, he is surely entitled to assume that the words he says into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world."
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.
The source of the exclusionary rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1914 verdict in the case of Weeks vs. U.S. The exclusionary rule basically says that illegally collected evidence will not be permitted in court. The rule was first used in the 1961 case of Mapp vs. Ohio. The exclusionary rule comes from the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against illegal searches and seizure of evidence or belongings. The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence.
The Defendants argued that a federal common-law cause of action to abate GHG emissions does not exist, that the claims raised political questions unfit for adjudication by the courts, that Congress has displaced any possible federal common-law cause of action seeking regulations of GHG emissions, and that Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue on account of global warming.15 Relying on Baker v. Carr, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ suits as presenting non-justiciable political questions.16 In Baker, the United States Supreme Court described the test of whether a case is justiciable, in light of the separation of powers doctrine, as “whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded.”17 Courts recognized six factors as