Criminal Law Case Study

This is a formal complaint submitted to BHP/DCA against Frank Pinelli, Quantum Developers LLC (Developer) Condominium Association: Cedar Woods Condominium Association (Board) and Jim Polos, Midlantic Property Management.

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

Grocery, Inc. was not aware that Company A had delegated Company B to continue the renovation. Grocery, Inc. ascertains the occurrence of this transaction after monitoring the quality of workmanship. However, Grocery, Inc. dismay, caused the store filed a petition for an injunction

The enforcement of the contract against the Smiths is unconscionable because the contract between the Smiths and Star Rent-to-Own involves gross disparity and overreaching/oppressive influences. Star has taken an unfair advantage of the Smith’s dependence, economic distress, and inexperience. During the execution of the contract, not all information was presented to the defendants and this played a major role in convincing them to enter into the contract. This brief is filed in support of the defendants Alex and Sandra Smith, showing the contract to be unconscionable.

BURNS provided legal services for DAVIS pursuant to a fee agreement dated September 23, 2015; retainer deposited into ROBERT BURNS TRUST account on, September 22, 2015. As part of those proceedings, BURNS sought payment for fees/costs and DAVIS disputed the charges. DAVIS also has potential claims for legal malpractice. Neither party has filed a lawsuit for their potential claims.

tribunal in order to hold a hearing to assess the amount of compensation the tenant owes the

Some tenants also may destroy the premise which is very costly, and in case the responsibility of taking care of such expenses is not spelt out, it may be a major cause of conflict. Unpaid bills are also another source of concerns.

For the last 13 years, I have enjoyed working in a wide range of commercial and construction related litigation. I have represented Bridgestone Americas, Inc., which includes Firestone Building Products, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., and manufacturers of various products used in construction. Including, the manufacturer and distributor of wall covering in hotel mold litigation involving buildings in the New Orleans area. These cases involved issues with bid and retainage bond rights, performance, payment, liability, responsibility, and interpreting contracts, drawings, specifications, change orders and back charges, lien rights and remedies for commercial office buildings, hotels and the New Orleans Superdome. Parties involved in these cases typically included, owners, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, laborers, material men, bond companies, suppliers, architects, bankruptcy trustees, bankers, and public officials. This work required in depth understanding of building envelopes and construction practices.

This case involves a simple landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiffs, Debra Nathan-Nenn and Grey Hoffman, and Defendants Gerry Goldman and Mary Goldman. Even though the basis of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries is that Defendants negligently maintained the property, Plaintiffs have now filed multiple complaints that have contained superfluous and unnecessary allegations, and which improperly plead evidence. Indeed, this Court recently struck Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for failing to plead short and concise statements, and dismissed other counts with prejudice for failing to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. In doing so, this Court admonished Plaintiffs to remove the superfluous and unnecessary allegations from any future pleading.

A weakness is made by the way that John require just present a rundown of records and adds up to be charged to renew the unimportant money store. The supporting documentation for the frivolous money payment additionally ought to be submitted with John's rundown and looked into by another person. Astonishment numbers of the store additionally ought to be made to guarantee that the trust is being kept up on an imprest premise, that is, to guarantee that money and/or Receipts Square with $200 at all times.

CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void, invalid, and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and demurred to defendants ' counterclaim.

The plaintiffs in this case asserted the theory of corporation by estoppel to support their claim for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. Under that theory, if an association that is not an actual corporation or a de facto or de jure corporation holds it out as a corporation, it will be estopped from denying corporate status. This often occurs when a third party contracts with a business entity that claims to be a corporation but does not have a certificate of incorporation. If justice requires, a court will treat an alleged corporation as if it were an actual corporation to determine liability in a particular situation. This occurred here—BSC did not have its certificate before Mayor signed the lease on its behalf. The court initially issued a summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, but later vacated that judgment, and on appeal, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed the order to vacate. The appellate court acknowledged that “a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract” but applied the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel.

The defendant Roffey Bros in September 1985 had contracted with Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats in London. There was a penalty cost for late completion according to the contract. As the main contractor, the defendant subcontracted necessary carpentry work to the plaintiff Mr Lester Williams for an agreed price of £20,000. The defendant had made interim payments of £16,200 by 9 April 1989 when the plaintiff completed the carpentry work for nine flats. However, the agreed price was under-quoted and was too low for the plaintiff to operate satisfactorily and at a profit. They then got into financial difficulty by the end of March 1986. Due to the reasons that the defendant worried lest the plaintiff did

Prior to completing this course, I was primarily interested in criminal law. My previous experience in this field had been relatively limited, but I was exposed to the inner workings of a public defender’s office during an internship and found it to be intriguing. I did not, however, have a firm grasp on the daily responsibilities involved in both prosecution and defense, or understand the way moral dilemmas shape the decision-making process. Our first speaker, Ms. Durand gave thorough insight into the mechanisms involved in the prosecutorial process. I found the case to be genuinely compelling to study. Her step by step examination of the entire case, from the initial 9-11 call to the plea deal, (now being appealed) gave me a much deeper understanding of how great a level of responsibility prosecutors have and how difficult it can be to maintain professionalism. I was unaware of the power prosecutors have in determining who is tried, how they are tried and the intricacies determining how those decisions are made. Ms. Durand’s recounting of her experiences with clients,

Decision of Lower Courts: The decision was favour of the defendant (Murphy). It was held that the occupant is a tenant, not a licensee.