. . This court, however, has rejected mere "speculative reasoning" as a basis for proving access, especially when intermediaries are involved. Id. Reasoning that amounts to nothing more than a "tortuous chain of hypothetical transmittals" is insufficient to infer access.
Jackson, for Respondent. |Date: |2000-06-19 | |Docket: |AI 99-30-04430 | |Parallel citations: |[2000] 9 WWR 1; 6 BLR (3d) 193; 148 Man R (2d) 19 | Introduction: The issue in this appeal is whether or not the trial judge was in error in finding that the parties had negotiated a valid contract for the sale of shares in a privately held company. Facts and Background: Gendis Inc. owned 50% of the issued shares of a private company that produces oil in western Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta called Tundra Oil and Gas Ltd. On January 28, 1998, Albert Cohen, the chair of Gendis’s board of directors, approached George Richardson, the managing director of James Richardson & Sons, Limited, the parent company of Richardson, for the purpose of selling the Gendis shares in Tundra to Richardson. Albert Cohen and George Richardson met on two occasions early in 1998 and also exchanged telephone calls in an attempt to reach an agreement. In a meeting on February 12, 1998 Albert Cohen decided that the CEO of Gendis, Allan MacKenzie, will be the authorized Agent negotiating the sale on behalf of Gendis.
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
Didion’s thoughts on how grief approaches us shows that grief just comes out of the ordinary, and when it comes it does not compliment our anticipations nor does it inform us that it is approaching. Gilbert’s supporting ideas on imagination elaborate on Didion’s perspective on expectation and reveals that we must be prepared for the worst, and since we can not predict future outcomes we should “practice” accepting and rejecting the outcomes we believe will occur. Didion states “Grief, when it comes, is nothing we expect it to be (Didion 10).” Didion explains, that what we expect is nothing compared to what actually happens. We can’t necessarily predict the Sheikh 2 outcome of a certain event, such as grief. As Didion explains, our expectations don’t always match up to what grief has to offer, Gilbert’s supporting claims relate to Didion’s feelings on expectations.
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.
They did not identify and manage risks relating to health and safety of the patient. They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and to prevent it before it occurred. They failed in their responsibilities to provide appropriate training and supervision to staff. They did not operate an effective recruitment procedure. They id not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.
Joan’s mere suspicion of Garcia is not enough to constitute probable cause. In the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
Fagor failed to fulfill two of the three conditions to apply for equitable relief on the basis of extrinsic mistake. Therefore, the trail court erred in granting equitable relief to
What legal principles—such as statutory or case law—support those liabilities and rights? • Since NewCorp did not hire Pat under a contract that specifies specific employee rights,
Empiricism brought it to be a consequentialist/teleological theory so it is the outcomes that matter not the motive because motives cannot be measured so they cannot be a part of a moral system. The