Fial also terminated the partnership’s contracts with the independent-contractor auditors and signed many of these auditors with his new firm. The partnership terminated about 11 months after Fial wrote the letter to Steeby. Steeby brought an action against Fial, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking a final accounting. Who wins? Steeby v. Fial, 765 P.2d 1081, Web 1988 Colo.App.
. . the crucial enforcement mechanism is the citizen-suit provision, which authorizes civil penalties and injunctive relief. This provides that “any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf against [a]n owner or operator of a facility for failure, among other things, to [c]omplete and submit an inventory form under section 11022(a) of this title [and] section 11023(a) of this title. “ As a prerequisite to bringing such a suit, the plaintiff must, 60 days prior to filing his complaint, give notice to the Administrator of the EPA, the State in which the alleged violation occurs, and the alleged violator.
In the United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Sammy Hoagge, competent adult Plaintiff No. 08cv 655 v. Piggly Wiggly, LLC. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER to PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT Not Guilty Comes now, the Defendant, by and through his attorney and alleges. The defendant answered the allegation as follows: Paragraph 1 of the complaint alleged that the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio and has a principal place of business at 90 N. Main Street, Seaman, Ohio 45693. The answer admitted the allegation.
The information was found in the legal dictionary. d. 144 is the page reference of the law report that the case commences. 2. The case was heard by the Court of Petty Sessions at Williams at first instance. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Robin’s Wood, Inc identified Anthony Monforte as its employee who did the actual painting of the steps. The property owners also alluded to the fact that they would contact Montforte and provide diligent attempts to have him appear in court. Court hearings were reset twice due to failure of producing Monforte or a representative in court. This occurred even after The Supreme Court ordered they provide someone within 30 days. On August 18, 2004, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's answer based upon the defendant's failure to produce a representative.
Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. We review a circuit court's decision regarding an equitable remedy under the abuse of discretion standard. V. Holding We conclude that Cicmanec entered into a binding, enforceable contract, and because he breached this contract, Ziegler Funeral Home is entitled on remand to relief. VI. Rationale or Reasoning All the essential terms were expressed in this agreement.
Title and Citation The case was that of the Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond. No.88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States 496 U.S. 414, argued Feb.21, 1990. Decided June 11, 1990. Facts of the Case Navy welder Charles Richmond was receiving disability annuity based on his prior civilian service in the Navy.
Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. 700 F.3d 428 (2012) Facts: Henry Barabin, the plaintiff, was exposed to asbestos from 1964 to 1984. During that time period he worked for a paper mill that used dryer felt which contained asbestos. The dryer felt was supplied by AstenJohnson, the defendant. Barabin developed a rare lung cancer only to be known to develop from asbestos. Barabin sued and was awarded $10,200,000 in which AstenJohnson appealed.
The truck goes in and secures the UN trucks. One guy on the truck yells “This is property of Mohammed Farrah Aidid, go back to your homes”. Unlike other presidents of Somalia, Aidid uses weapons and famine to control his country. A couple weeks later, after the Marines left, the militia led by Aidid regrouped and declared war with the UN relief effort. The next mission is to capture two of Aidid’s top advisers at their meeting in downtown Mogadishu.
Citation: 46 N.Y. 467, 1871 N.Y. 280 The parties involved in this case are the plaintiff, White, who was a builder whose working place was in Fortieth Street, New York City. The defendants in this case were Corlies and Tift, merchants whose place of work was 32 Day Street, New York. The defendants sent out details for work on an office building to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to give a rough estimate of their expected cost. The plaintiff sent the estimated cost of work to the defendant where upon receiving it, the defendant wrote back to the plaintiff asking him to start work at once. The plaintiff upon receiving the note from the defendant did not send back any response but commenced work the next day by buying lumber necessary for completion of the defendants work.