Construction Inc. Vs Harrison Case Summary

In the case between Michael Franz David Willms and Manisha Willms and Macdonald builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd, outlines a “breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation” (Willms v. MacDonald Builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd., 2016), and contains the application of the builder’s lien act. The plaintiffs had come to and agreement with the defendant to renovate their house. However the Plaintiffs argue that the conduct of the defendant led to the creation of many deficiencies, which ultimately led to the project not being completed to the level of satisfaction the plaintiffs desired. This in turn led to legal action.

Facts: In 1952 the United States was in a conflict in Korea, and the demand for steel

Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse is a very detailed case, that features many aspects of the patriarchy, and lingering ways of thinking about gender that are hopefully being phased out of modern society. The Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling, which was the right decision in a legal sense, though there was more proof that Hopkins was discriminated against.

In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment.

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

This case was also cited in PEABODY COAL CO., LLC v. BARNHART., 469 F.Supp.2d 240 (2007) case held in the United States District Court, D. Delaware. The decision on this case was made on January 11, 2007. According to this case, on September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs Peabody Coal Company, LLC (“Peabody”) and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("EACC") filed suit against defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Plaintiffs' complaint that Barnhart's (defendant) actions of assigning them (plaintiffs) the responsibility for funding health and death benefits for certain retired coal industry employees violated both § 9706 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 ("Coal Act"), 26 U.S.C.

The case I decided to use for my reflection was the “United Sates vs. Jones” case. Jones was a man being investigated for drug trafficking and so the police got a warrant to put a GPS on his jeep to monitor him. The police went beyond what they were allowed to do in the warrant, therefore he was found not guilty due to the violation of the Fourth Amendment. District prosecutors disagreed and took it to the Supreme court to review.

The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent

Eminent Domain if used correctly is a fair practice. Looking at this case, I think governments should put more rules into this law to make sure it is not used to take advantage of people. All those home were taken so that a Pharmaceutical company could bring their people here to live which in-turn would help the community. In the end they did not come. It was total waste of effort. In this case Eminent Domain was take advantage of because of a hypothetical that private corporation could help a community. It should not have been used in the first place. Eminent Domain should stick with only being used only for community efforts such as highways, hospital, efforts the community of that city.

The issue is whether Lion’s Paint Shop owes any legal duty of care to Mr. Newhouse to ensure his safety from unreasonable risk of harm caused by dangerous conditions while on the premises of the paint store. In order to provide adequate information to support Mr. Newhouse’s case, we must determine whether Mr. Newhouse have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for fault, gross negligence, or willful and wanton misconduct on the store’s part to recover damages for his injuries as a result of his slip and fall incident on Lion’s Paint Store premises. Under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.6304(8), when a breach of legal duty exists, the defendant is at “fault” and can be liable for negligence under duty of care based upon the status of the claimant

While driving Curtis Campbell the defendant, chose to pass six vans on a two-lane highway. Another driver was Todd Ospital, who was approaching from the other side. Moreover, to avoid a head on collision with the defendant, Ospital swerved over into the shoulder of the highway lost control of his vehicle and crashed in to driver Robert Slusher. In result Ospital was killed, and Slusher was permanently disabled, meanwhile the Campbell’s escape without a scratch. Being charged for wrongful death the defendant believed he was not at fault, however evidence differed his claim. The Campbell’s insurance company decided to deny the offer made by Slusher & Ospital estate for a settlement of “50,000 ($25,000 per claimant)”. (Oyez) Which lead the defendant to be found completely at fault, and judgment went back up to up to $185,849.( Cornell Law). Three years later the defendant, Slusher, and made an agreement that they would not speak against Mr. Campbell; and in exchange the defendant would sue the insurance

The Hortinville case is an interesting one, and a case that had a profound impact on the landscape of teacher unions and on the impact that school boards have. Case law refers to “precedents and authority set by previous court rulings” (http://www.hg.org/case-law.html.) In this instance, the Hortinville decision by the Supreme Court to allow the school board to dismiss the teachers who went on strike made it clear that, school boards had the direct authority to dismiss teachers. Particularily in this case, the school board felt that that the teachers strike was not in the best interest of the students, and therefore, the court believed that the school board was acting in the best interest of the students (Hortinville, 2014.) The Supreme Court ruled that the teachers had violated state law by striking, which had been prompted by a failed attempt to renew a collective bargaining agreement. The teachers were asked to return to work by the superintendent, when the teachers did not return to work, they were then dismissed.

The case file recommendations for Jones, Smith and Thompson. The evidence against Jones on February 6, 2005 for the third possession of cocaine after the convictions in 1993 and 1994. Given the fact of being on good behavior as an informant to agreeing with have the under over agents meet the dealer. Jones will not be persecuted for any drug offenses that go on while being on an informant based on the two prior convictions for possession of cocaine, Jones would be tried in Federal Court but due to Jones cooperation the case will be filed in Wichita city and due to the change in charge to drug paraphernalia it is a minor criminal case that would take place in the Wichita Municipal Court ("Municipal Court", 2017).

The costs associated with the litigation filed by Beth Smiles Company against the denial of the insurance claim settlement of the death of her business partner due to accident which made the company eligible to a double indemnification went through the roof because of the number of depositions made by the lawyers of the insurance company. This was done to pressurize the small company like Environ- vision to give up the litigation and accept the offer of $100,000 initially made to the company. Moreover, since, the company Environ- vision was the plaintiff it had to show substantial proof that the death of its partner was accidental while the insurance company had to proof that it was suicide committed by the man in order to avoid a claim of

In the case of L and V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc., et al the vehicle owner and plaintiff, Alejandro Leone sued AAMCO and Drive Train for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and statutory theft. Claims were also bought against Heritage Insurance. The charges against the aforementioned defendants stem for the interactions the plaintiff had with each party.