Case Analysis: Foss V. Harbottle

The highly controversial case of Gambotto v WCP Ltd not only reduced the ability of companies to acquire shares compulsorily through an amendment to their constitutions, but also stimulated debate around the topic of share acquisition itself . The High Court decision in Gambotto was recognized immediately to be extremely important in the corporate world, with one headline stating it had “radically altered the balance of power within corporate Australia” . Despite the significance of the ruling, responses to Gambotto have generally been negative. Courts have almost uniformly chosen not to extend the principles in Gambotto to situations in other cases, with the result that the principles have stayed narrowly confined to the

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.

Jan Hughes, Plaintiff-Appellant v, Boston Scientific corporation, Defendant-Apellee., 631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011)

631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011) .

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

In the case between R. v Maracle, it was about a 14 year old Brantford female was kidnapped at gunpoint by David Maracle on May 26, 1997 and brutally and repeatedly raped. This event had accused on 1997, and then was farther investigated and made its way to court. On November 8, 2000, the trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender and ordered him detained for an indeterminate period. The appellant appeals conviction and sentence. The case was later appealed in 2006. This case took place in superior court of justice. This case took place because the appellant’s conviction and sentence. In this case it shows the dangers so sex offenders and how hard they try to get away with crime that they have committed, even though they left all the proof / evidence behind at the location which was all leading up to them, being the one to frame. (http://www.thespec.com)

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Adam Foss, makes his case for a reformed justice system that replaces wrath with opportunity, changing people’s lives for the better instead of ruining them…by shifting his focus from incarceration to transforming lives, reinventing the roles of the criminal prosecutor (Foss, 2016). To help understand individuals and how and why certain behaviors take place, the type of qualitative research chosen would focus on individuals by examining the criminal activity of the defendant in addition to their demographics and prior history and location of the crime. A prosecutor should not institute, or cause to be instituted, or to permit the continued pendency of criminal charges when the prosecutor knows that the charges are not supported by probable

Frontiero v. Richardson case occurred in 1973, putting it in the middle of the second wave of feminism. This was a time of women’s marches and advocates for equal rights. Opposed to the first wave of feminism the second wave was more inclusive to women of color. Most likely because it was happening at the same time as the Civil rights and Chinco movements. Along with this, the second wave focused more on equality in the workplace and reproductive rights, whereas the first wave was more focused on voting rights. During this time period, the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan was popularized encouraging women the challenge the “homemaking rules” and the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was formed. Along with this, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was passed just one year before in 1972. Overall the 1960s and 70s were a time of great progression for equal rights.

A 17 year old girl went to a job interview in the back of the accused’s (Ewanchuk) van. After the interview concluded, Ewanchuk invited her into his trailer to see some of his work. The complainant complied, and purposely left the trailer door open-- though Ewanchuk closed the door soon after, in a way where the complainant had thought he had locked it. The accused began a string of sexual touches, each more intimate than the previous, which the complainant said “no” to, only to have Ewanchuk continue with another advance shortly thereafter. Any compliance the complainant offered was due to fear of the altercation turning violent. Ewanchuk paid her $100 before she left and told her not to tell anyone about it.

For the mock trial I was assigned to be one of the prosecuting attorneys. After being presented with case materials which included facts of the case, statements from both prosecuting and defense witnesses, penal code for the alleged charges, and map of the crime scene, we as a group decided to create one Google Drive document. There we would upload our parts of the case and help other group members with their assignments.

H.E.B, the 11th largest grocery chain in United States, started 30 years ago. When the company was started, it was a predominantly private label company. Recognizing the customer drawing power of national brands, H.E.B took crucial steps to build a strong national brand presence. HEB was known for its superior quality products, its customer service and a broad assortment of merchandise. Additionally the company’s focus on delivering on its promise of everyday low prices, especially to the low income households that it catered to, was amongst its most critical success factors.

of minority shareholder claims (personal and derivative) for oppression under Section 216 of the Companies Act.

Foss v Harbottle case was a foundation of development of derivative action that enables a minority shareholder to bring a legal action in order to recover from a wrong done to the company. Two principles, so-called Foss v Harbottle rule, were made to corporate law in related to a minority shareholder’s right. The first principle was the internal management rule preventing floodgates open to multitude actions by individual shareholders dissatisfied with operation of a company. Under the internal management rule, complaining on internal management by minority shareholders was taken by a board of directors. A decision for the complaint was also decided by the majority rule. The second principle was the proper