Joyce Byers V. Martin Brenner's Failure

Christopher Simmons, who was seventeen years old, and two of his friends by the name of Charles Benjamin(fifteen years old) and John Tessmer (sixteen years old) had a detailed conversation about committing a murder. Christopher Simmons had a premeditated plan to which included, burglary (breaking and entering), robber and

EC- 1.7 (A), ABA 1.5(A)- Legal Assistant, Carl, did not introduce himself to Jane as a legal assistant. He simply conducted the interview without properly identifying himself. Jane could have been under the false impression that Carl was also a licensed attorney. Especially since Carl also gave Jane unauthorized legal advice when he advised her about not reporting certain incomes to improve the quality of her case.

What alternatives are available to Brent in regards to the audit of payables? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

Erin Brockovich is in a car accident that is not her fault and hires attorney Ed Masry to defend her. He gave her the impression that she would be getting a good settlement, but she lost the case. She is a single mom of three, has no money and is unable to find a job. She blames him for losing the case (due to lack of preparation) and forces her way in to a job at his law firm. Because of the way she dresses and acts, nobody takes her seriously and treats her with respect. She is given a real estate pro-bono file to open involving the purchase of Donna Jensen’s home by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PS&E). As she read through the documentation, she found it confusing that there was medical

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.

The author, Phyllis A. Roth, is not your ordinary feminist, because she is also a Freudian. A better term to describe Roth would be a psychoanalytic feminist. One of her works as an author can be found in the back of the book Dracula: A Norton Critical Edition. Her criticism article is titled Suddenly Sexual Woman in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. In her article she analyzes the famous novel Dracula. She explores how gender plays a role in the novel and the concept of femininity. She writes about the transformation that takes place when a proper lady turns into a sexual vampire. Her article points out where hostility toward women 's sexuality is displayed in the novel, that the average reader may not pick up on. Roth has a strong argument. Let us examine Roth’s case.

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.

Yes. I think Dr. Gerber is still responsible. Although the payments made had legitimate purposes, they could still be viewed as intent to induce referrals. And as long as one purpose among all was intended to induce referrals then a statute becomes violated. Secondly, the law views remuneration as anything that has monetary value. Therefore, I would agree the court would

She relied very heavily on the advice of her lawyers during their divorce, rather than trying to settle things more personally with Baldwin. I believe that in their case, the wrong kind of mediator was brought in to help them settle their disputes. (ABC News, 2008) I believe that while lawyers were necessary to some degree, it is very likely they manipulated the situation to gain more money. A better mediator to start with would have been a couples counselor.

II. Can our client show a special injury from another earlier suit against him, as required to have an action for malicious prosecution, when his charter boat was seized pending the suit as allowed by state, and when his professional reputation was damaged because of the suit?

Since first being admitted to the Missouri Bar Association in 1980, Richard Gartner has primarily focused his practice on general criminal and civil trial litigation, achieving a level of success that has earned him countless recognition and awards. Over the years, he has been included in “Who's Who of American Lawyers” and admitted

Gillett v. Holt The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: ' [when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637)

Sara Sweet came into our office seeking counsel on an action for negligence involving an automobile accident she was involved in several weeks ago. On the day of the accident Sara was driving home around 4:00 p.m., as she was driving through an intersection on a green light she was T-boned by a truck that had run a red light. The truck is owned by Big Bucks, Int’l and was being driven by employee Billy Bob Jones who had been drinking and was DUI at the time of the accident. The police report also shows that Ms. Sweet was likely driving over the speed limit at the time of the accident. The accident left Ms. Sweet with physical injuries including two broken ribs, a collapsed lung, broken nose, ruptured spleen, several severe bruises, and a big gash on her forehead. The injuries sustained by Ms. Sweet required her to undergo surgery and the large gash on her head has caused her to have seizures and severe headaches. Ms. Sweet’s injuries have made it impossible for her to drive for six months and have prevented her from working since the accident. She has used up all of her sick leave and is no longer earning income, she fears losing her job. Ms. Sweet is also left without a vehicle because the accident totaled her 2010 Toyota Camry.

That being said, the correctness of this decision by the high court in re-characterising the role of presumptions doesn’t come without its scrutiny. It is often argued that it was wrongful, confusing or downright unnecessary to address presumptions as the case of Ermogenous did. Despite its short falls, the re-characterised role which doesn’t completely rule out presumptions but negates sole reliance on them, provides more positive arguments than negatives. The decision itself was persuaded and influenced by many supportive cases before Ermogenous and followed by many cases after Ermogenous using the re-characterised role as precedent. The decision was made with consideration to all proceeding commercial and domestic cases and arguably the outcome has assisted a more fair and just approach to the law.