Dose Latham's Trial Case

The case is called Vosburg v. Putney which issue from Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Vosburg is the plaintiff who had been suffered an unforeseeable injury on his leg below his knee; However, before the injury are healing, a few days later, Vosburg’s classmate, Putney, who is the defendant had kicked Vosburg’s injury sport. Vodburg hadn’t feel any plain at first, but after a while, he felt the pain and have to underwent surgery. As a result, Vodburg had lost his injured leg, and he sue Putney for battery and assault.

This decision is about liability of a Waverly Council and the Australian Sports Oztag Association for damages arising out of an injury suffered by Mr. Salvo who injured his knee while playing Oztag on an uneven ground. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Salvo’s appeal on the basis that neither the Oztag Association nor Waverly Council had acted negligently and that Mr. Falvo had not shown that any breach of duty of care caused these damages. The District Court trial judge, Hungerford ADCJ, concluded thatt the playing field was consistent with acceptable standards for playing sports such as Oztag .That Oztag was a “dangerous recre-ational activity” within the meaning of ss 5K and 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (New South Wales). This meant

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.

Overall, through the thorough analysis of both primary texts as well as several secondary sources regarding the Thomas and Jane Weir trial as well as witch hunting in Scotland as a whole, it can be determined that women were unfairly persecuted due to the gender roles prevalent in early modern Scotland and the lack of separation between the church and the state played an immense role in ensuring this occurred. However, as stated previously, all sources must be analyzed for bias because this could have a drastic impact on the message delivered to the audience versus what was actually happening at the

I strongly believe that Latham does not deserve a new trial and should stay with his current sentence. There have been many "problems" with his appellant case such as fingerprints inside the home and not driving the green car. Yet after all of this he still manages to get everything he said disproven. Latham is in jail and for a good reason which is 1st degree burglary.

Times were changing and some Americans welcomed contemporary culture, mass entertainment, racial, sexual, and traditions while other frowned upon it. Evangelicals Protestants felt threaten by the old-fashioned values and the upsurge of Catholicism and Judaism due to immigration. Believing that the precise truth of the Bible made the foundation of Christianity, fundamentalists organized a campaign to get rid of modernism in order to battle the new liberties that challenged traditional ethics.

‘Mabo V Queensland’ was an Australian prominent landmark case which began in 1982 in the High Court of Australia. This case is commonly referred to as just ‘Mabo’. This case was taken to the High Court as a test case to establish Aboriginal’s land rights including their ownership. A test case is a case that establishes new legal rights or principals. In this case, the concept of terra nullius was also challenged. Terra Nullius means ‘empty land’.

Our verdict in our trial was guilty and I don't believe that verdict is correct because we did not kidnap him he came with us willingly because he wanted have someone play Indians with him. But I guess that the prosecuting team had more evidence to support their claim. I dont think that verdict was fair either way.

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

The 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abington v, Schempp ruled that public schools and personnel could not mandate devotional activities in their classrooms or schools. Justice Clark went on to say that study of religion as a part of human culture and the humanities is well within the guidelines established by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This Supreme Court decision allows for the academic study of religion at all levels of public education. So groups cannot be barred from using public school facilities or other public buildings. The Equal Access Act was passed by the 98th Congress in the 1984 and upheld by the Supreme Court in Board of Education of Westside Community School District v. Mergens (1990). This gave religious groups

During the trial, Dill got emotional and started crying, and I wouldn’t blame him. The reason he was crying was because the victim's attorney talk to Tom in a different way than the other people, he talked to him like he was a animal, like he had no voice. Dill just couldn’t hear the injustice, and the lies that were being told over and over again. How could someone blame another person for something they didn’t do and still think well of themselves amazes me, it’s such a horrible thing to do yet at the time they thought that it was alright. Dill wants to change all of this injustice going on around him and Tom’s situation but he is just a kid and he can’t do much about it, that’s what really makes him helpless and starts crying. As a child

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

The leading cases, CIR v Mitsubishi Motors Ltd [1995] and Commissioner of Taxation v James Flood Pty Ltd [1953] that reflect a taxpayer