Coward V. Moran Case Summary

The primary legal question facing the court is whether or not Ms Jonah and Mr White’s relationships can be classified and recognised as de-facto in accordance with the definition produced in section 4AA (1) of the Act. In order for the court to decide, it must be established if the pair’s relationships was one of a “genuine domestic basis”. The court must analyse Murphy J’s decision that the parties did not hold a “reputation” as a coupledom. Whether or not the feelings of both parties towards the grounds of their relationship was mutual is questioned. Furthermore, the appeal highlights that in accordance with the Act and precedence of Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343, it is possible for a marriage and a de-facto relationship to exist simultaneously, thus the court must address whether or not this fact is relevant to the decision.

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

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

In the book, Dred Scott v. Sandford, they discuss the Dred Scott case and the problems that arose from the case. Basically, the Supreme Court overreached its bounds in regards to the case it oversaw. The court was asked to decide on the fate of Dred Scott and his family in regards to their freedom. Instead, they overreached and decided on constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and the overall citizenship of all those of African descent. This brought the matter of slavery to the forefront of everyone’s mind in America. It thoroughly destroyed the status quo of the North and South.

John Cain met employee Oliver Dean Emigh (“Emigh”) and owner John Roberts at the Bargain Barn in March of 1998. John Cain (“Cain”) was a self-employed computer consultant. John Roberts (“Roberts”) explained to Cain that he needed documents typed for Republic of Texas (“ROT”) legal matters due to being a member of the ROT. Cain met with Johnie Wise and Roberts the next day at the Bargain Barn to discuss computer related topics. Cain became worried about Roberts, ROT affiliation when he went to work for Roberts on a daily basis. Cain told the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about Roberts’ request for secretarial assistance on ROT matters

McCulloch v. Maryland case goes back to the 1800s when the State of Maryland, being unhappy with the rising power of the Bank of the United States, enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The State of Maryland sued James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank of the Baltimore branch, for issuing bank notes without obeying to the state’s law and for failing to pay the taxes to the state. The main issues that were raised during the case were: whether or not the Congress had the power to create a bank under the Constitution and whether or not the State of Maryland had the power to impose taxes on a federal bank which was created with authorized powers under the Constitution. The case was

The court case of the United States v. Morrison seemed to be an unfair case in favor of the men convicted of rape. The United States v. Morrison case was a United States Supreme Court decision, which held that parts of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The USC passed the VAWA that contained a provision (42 USC) that protected victims of gender-based violence, even if no charges had been filed against the criminal. In 1994 at Virginia tech, Christy Brzonkala claimed she was raped by two of her fellow classmates, Antonio Morrison, and James Crawford. During the first hearing of the case, Morrison admitted to having sexual

Do your constitutional rights protect you from state laws? In 1989 Texas v. Johnson, Johnson had burned an American flag and Texas state law protects the American flag from being burned when the flag burner knows it will seriously offend others. Johnson was then arresting and tried, then the case went all the way to the Supreme court. Johnson claimed he was expressing his right to free speech. Flag burning conveyed a political message. Preserving the flag was related to the suppression of expression. There was no breach of peace. Johnson burning the flag was indeed free speech and he is protected by the 1st Amendment in this instance.

Facts of the Case: Hayes Slaughter was a doctoral candidate at Brigham Young University; a private, religious institution of higher education sponsored, owned, and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Hayes used the name of B.Y.U. professor as a co-author – without the professor’s permission – in hopes of increasing his chances of getting the article accepted for publication. Previously, Hayes submitted the same paper with only his own name for publication without success. However, after adding the name of Professor Thorne, the paper was successfully published, but without the knowledge or input of Professor Thorne himself. Additionally, the

I disagree, each state has the power to create it’s own bank and in McCulloch v. Maryland the rights of the bank were ignored.

A 2011 case, Kreet v Sampir, Ms Kreet, the victim, wished for her marriage to Mr Sampir to be annulled as it was not a valid marriage under Australian law. Ms Kreet married her husband under duress from her family, therefore not giving her free and full consent making the marriage invalid under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). The marriage was then annulled (AustLII, 2011). In this case, Ms Kreet believed that her family was taking her overseas to be married to her boyfriend, Mr U, however while overseas, under duress, she was forced to marry Mr Sampir.

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

Background: The (Snyder v. Phelps) case dealt with the First Amendment and what it protects. A congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church was protesting Matthew Snyder’s funeral and caused the family a lot of emotional distress. Matthew Snyder was a former Marine who died while serving a tour in Iraq. The protestors were holding up signs that said, “Semper Fi fags, God Hates the USA, Thank God for IEDS.” (Lee Epstein, Pgs 469-72). The Westboro Baptist church has picketed many military funerals. They resent that the military will allow homosexuals to fight for their country. In June 2006, the father, Albert Snyder filed the lawsuit against the Westboro Church. He claimed that the protest caused the family intense emotional distress and that the church intentionally meant to inflect the distress. The Westboro Baptist church said that what they did was protected under the First Amendment. Although this is the first court case that’s been brought up against the Westboro Baptist church and made it to the Supreme Court. They’ve done forms of protests for many years. For example they’ve picketed anything they believe to have in relation to homosexuality. They’ve even protested some of the Kansas

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.