Summary Of The Sullivan Family Vs Cook Family

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

The Sanchez family is the typical Latino family that you find in most neighborhoods. The mother Celia Sanchez doesn’t speak English since she’s surrounded by people who speak Spanish. As a Latino mother she’s very religious attends church and participates in church events where she gets food as well. Since Celia’s English is limited this has been an impediment during school conferences and other situations that she has faced. Celia wants to apply for food stamps but her husband Hector doesn’t agree and is completely against it. I kind of understand where Hector is coming from being the man of the house he feels that he needs to provide for his family and thinks he’s responsible for everyone. Thus, he doesn’t leave room for additional help and wants to everything himself.

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

3. Discuss the factors that a judge must consider reaching a decision in a private nuisance action.

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

5) Decide whether or not jurisdiction is proper based on purposeful availment in the forum state and whether the court of appeals should appeal or reverse the district’s court ruling.

Fuller began looking for a house to purchase in Sioux Falls in 2002, his agent shows house owned by home owned by James and Patricia Croston. They were the sole owner after the construction of property. Being interested in the house, fuller received a discoulusure statement from croston required by SDCL 43-4-38. The disclosure statement indicated that the home had not experienced any water penetration problems. However, when Crostons signed the disclosure statement in November 2002 they were aware of two to three occasions between 1969 and 1977 when water had seeped into the basement. They maintain that they did not include this information in the disclosure statement on the recommendation of their real estate agent, Janey Johnson,[1] who allegedly

The second issue is whether officer Wilson had probable cause to search the passenger seat and trunk of David’s automobile incident to arrest. For the court to rule in favor of suppressing the evidence found, we must apply the two prongs of the Gant rule.