Assignment: The Case Of Donohue V. Stevenson

Brown v. Board of education combined five separate cases, Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe. The case was sponsored by the NAACP.

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

The case of Hawkins V Clayton was the result of a breach of duty by the solicitors of the testator, Mrs Brasier, and to the executor of the estate, Mr Hawkins. The solicitors were in custody of Mrs Brasier’s will and seemingly were not aware of the testators death for some time as they had written letters to her regarding her will in September 1978 and August 1979 with no response.

Majority pointed to the critical difference between the 1996 and the 1902 Acts pointing to the differences between pawn or pledge and a chattel mortgage and the different property rights created by the two fundamentally different types of security. They go on to say that if pawn is given its accepted and long established legal meaning then the reasoning of the Court of Appeal is “necessarily flawed”. They go on to say that pawn and chattel mortgage are mutually exclusive

Robert Nozick declares a transfer of holdings just if the exchange is voluntary and if the holding being exchanged was originally acquired by just means.2 The first key point of this argument that should be rejected is the fact that the grounds for a ‘just’ transfer of holdings relies

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

In Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts[10], a case concerning delegation of power of requisition, Lord Denning affirmed that the Council ”cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land…because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.” More recently, Neuberger J. in Re Friends Provident Life Office[11] reassured “a lease involves not only a contract, but also an estate in land”[12]. Therefore, the traditional concepts are long-standing principle and the possibility of leases existing merely in contractual nature and granting “tenant” merely contractual rights are denied by courts.

As demonstrated in proposed passage 12.5 of the Commentary on Art. 10, which was incorporated into the most recent talk draft on the significance of "helpful owner":9 "while the idea of 'beneficial owner' manages a few types of assessment evasion (i.e. those including the intervention of a beneficiary who is obliged to pass on the profit to another person), it doesn't manage different instances of settlement shopping and should not, in this manner, be considered as confining in any capacity the utilization of different ways to deal with tending to such

Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B .