The System Of Collective Rights

This landmark case in criminal procedure was marked by great public criticism for the liberal stance shown by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ensures defendant’s rights to what many people regarded as opening the door to convicted criminals to escape punishment through “technicalities”.

state prosecutor. (Lippman, 2007) The purpose of the civil action is to compensate you with

To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will describe the legality of the case by reviewing the

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

Afro Brazilians have had to deal with centuries of oppression. During these times, Afro-Brazilians have had to deal with various methods, and strategies designed to keep entire communities oppressed. Many of these methods have had effects so profound, they are still affecting many Brazilians till this day. Political oppression is one of the oldest methods known to man, along with unleashing a forceful police force mimicking military forces. Authoritarian rule also played a major role in the shaping of the country. Furthermore, an inept biased justice system will fail those who need protections, and justice the most. These four key modes will be objectively examined, as well as the efficacy of each of these repressive strategies, and the impact that they have had or still have in the Afro-Brazilian communities.

This case shows that Shaffer filed a shareholder’s derivative suit in Delaware state court against Heitner and 28 corporate officers for violating their duties while in Oregon resulting in corporate liability for lots of damages in an antitrust suit, plus a fine in criminal actions. In demand, he filed motion for possession of Delaware property of the defendants. Heither didn’t sign residency in Delaware and owned one share of Greyhound stock. Heither filed for motion legal possession of Greyhound’s stock owned by 21 of the corporate officers in order to keep quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. Delaware’s statute allowed assets in the state to be seized by the court to keep personal ownership. Shaffer challenged the court’s jurisdiction on obtaining

During this case processing, court has also considered past reference cases such as National Resourced Defense Council Inc. v. Gorsuch, 222 U.S. App. D.C. 268,685 F. 2d 718 (1982), Mortan v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231(1974), Unites States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374,382.383 (1961), Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 63/64 (1975) for final outcome of this case 002E (Council, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense

The first case I have chosen involves a breach of contract between Anthony Leness and Eventmonitor inc. Anthony claims Eventmonitor breached his employment contract when they stopped paying him his salary for one year upon termination. Eventmonitor monitor claims that Anthony breached the contract when he didn’t return items embodying propitiatory information upon his termination (site case). The second case I have chosen involves United States of America alleging Lewis F. Carter owes back taxes. Lewis claims that the government lacks an enforcement clause to collect taxes. In this paper I will discuss how each of these cases move their way through the appropriate court system as well as the differences in the process.

1. According to the article, why do the authors think that traditional litigation methods have not been wholly successful in California?

Public interest litigation is the worldwide phenomena adopted by various countries of the world with the object of providing justice to all specially to those who are downtrodden, weak, poor, illiterate unable to approach the court for the enforcement of their rights by themselves. In public interest litigation the rule of locus standi has been relaxed considerably to provide access of justice to all the people despite of their vulnerable conditions, whereby any public spirited person or any organization can come forward in Court of law for the protection of the rights of such people. Since public interest litigation emerged as an advocacy strategy in the US civil rights movement, it has spread to other parts of the world. To varying degrees,

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

Foss v Harbottle case was a foundation of development of derivative action that enables a minority shareholder to bring a legal action in order to recover from a wrong done to the company. Two principles, so-called Foss v Harbottle rule, were made to corporate law in related to a minority shareholder’s right. The first principle was the internal management rule preventing floodgates open to multitude actions by individual shareholders dissatisfied with operation of a company. Under the internal management rule, complaining on internal management by minority shareholders was taken by a board of directors. A decision for the complaint was also decided by the majority rule. The second principle was the proper

Judicial Activism has opened up new dimensions for the judicial process and in the administration of justice and has given a hope of the justice to the million starving people. The Fundamentals Rights enshrined in the Constitution have no meaning for the large masses of people who are leading a life a poverty and destitution, unless a socio-economic structure in which these rights become meaningful for them is created. The concept of Public Interest Litigation intended to bring justice within the reach of poor masses and to people who are not in a position to have access to Courts. It was initiated for the benefit of a class of people, who had been denied their constitutional and legal rights as they could not have access to the Courts on account of their socio-economic disabilities. Public Interest Litigation or PIL is understood and treated as the citizens’ invocation and the use of the delivery of legal services in aid of and as a tool of administration of justice.