Case Analysis : Bridgewater V Leahy

They also held that there could be no accomplice to the negligent homicides and dismissed Etzweieler’s Indictments.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The decision from the first case was reached in just one day, rather expeditiously for a case, which took fourteen months to get to trial; yet there were valid reason. For Example, the judge ruled, “the testimony could not prove that Irene Emerson owned Dred Scott.” (Lukes, 21) This shows that the burden of proof was on Dred Scott to prove his ownership, in order to have a ruling on his freedom. This also shows how one tiny oversight by one side can affect the outcome of a case. In addition, the record indicated, “The said defendant is not guilty in manner and form as the plaintiff hath in his declaration complained against her.” (Lukes 22) This shows that because of Scott’s attorney’s error in argument, the court had to rule in favor of Mrs. Emerson. This also shows that in a strange twist of fate, in effect, allowed Mrs. Emerson to keep her slaves because no one had proven they were her slaves. In conclusion, Dred Scott had lost in the first court appearance, but the case was far from over. 182

Procedural History: A wrongful death lawsuit was filed by Diane Geringer due to the drowning deaths of both William and Jared Geringer. The trial courts found that the defendants (Mr. Waters and Les Bretzke), were negligent in their duties while the family were vacationing at the Wildhorn Ranch.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

Haywood brought his case to the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court of New York dismissed Haywood’s complaints; the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed. Following this, Haywood appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and was granted certiorari.

Was it acceptable that the plaintiff uses the down payment for damages? The appellants looked to K.S.A. 84-2-718. The appellants attempted to state that the contract sale date should be August 23rd not September 21st and that there should be a subtraction of $500 dollars from the $1000.00.

Williams states that he thought that the issue would best be worked out by moving one of them to prevent further problems for all involved. He had not made a final decision, He told Vllahinja to give him a few days so he could speak to Anthony and to come to a decision.

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

The issues of the case, is the Brown family having a polygamy relationship while it’s illegal to do so in the state of Utah. The Brown family contends it is in their religion to practice polygamy relationships, while the defendant contends the religion the Browns claims they are a part of does not practice polygamy relationships anymore since 1904.

McClain, P. J. A., Sheehan, B. F., & Butler, L. L. (1998). Substantive rights retained by

The famous US decision of Riggs v Palmer serves to illustrate a considerable strength in Dworkin’s argument concerning rules and principles. The New York court had to decide a case to determine whether a grandson who poisoned his grandfather to obtain his inheritance was in fact able to collect such an inheritance. At the time, there existed no statute or law that invalidated his claim as a beneficiary due to his involvement in the murder. Furthermore, the applicable legal rule seemed to be that legacies contained in legally valid testamentary dispositions are to be guaranteed by law in accordance with the wishes of the testator. According to Hart, the court should, in this situation, be decided upon pre-existing law. Yet despite this, the court majority found that the grandson could not inherit, instead appealing to moral reasoning by citing the principle that no one should be able to profit from ones crimes. A similar decision based on principle was handed down 70 years later in the case of Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors Inc. As a result of these cases, Dworkin is able

acted knowingly and purposely. . .” Sections 45-2-203 did not allow the jury to consider that

Bridgewater will discuss through disagreements with their customers just like they do with their employees (Polzer).