Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale V Islington LBC Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

There are a number of landmark court cases of special education in the country that have become the basis of how we currently provide services to students with disabilities. Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970) and Larry P. v. Riles (1984) are two of these landmark court cases that highlight nondiscriminatory assessments. Below is the analysis of the two court cases in four major sections: The Legal Cases, Summary, Future Practice, and Comparison and Contrasts.

The Hillsborough tragedy is the worst tragedy in a stadium in the history of United Kingdom that resulted in the death of ninety six people. Disasters such as the Hillsborough tragedy do not just happen out of the blues but, are a sum of various mistakes as well as negligence or misjudgements. When these factors come together, the end result is a disaster that involves loss of lives and life threatening injuries. Before any event organizer or premises owner agrees to enter in such massive liabilities, it is important that all systems are critically evaluated in order to address any lapses in structural capacity, design or even security and management aspects that could result in human injury or death (The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 2009).

The case of Ashfield Council v Trinity Grammar School is included in Class 1 (environmental planning and protection appeals). According to the section 97 and 97AA Land and Environment Court Act 1979, Class 1 - development appeals relates to the development application and development modification consent for different kinds of development.

In Alabama in the early 1970’s, there was a height and weight limitation, in order to be considered as a candidate for becoming a prison guard. The restrictions were minimum 5’2 and 120 pounds. Such requests ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who made a class action suit against the requirements, as she thought that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Dianne Rawlinson raised the legal question in Court whenever height and weight requirements for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club should be held vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out of court.

seen as a hero if we look at the poem in the corrupt figures point of

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is a state tribunal for the Victorians that help and guide to resolve disputes on different aspects including Building and Property, Civil Disputes, Equal Opportunity, Guardians-Administrators, Joint Property and Water, Legal Practice, Owners Corporations, Retail Tenancies, State Taxation, Business Regulation, Domestic Building, FOI-TAC and other Claims, Health- Privacy / Disability Act, Land Valuation, Mental Health, Planning and Environment and Residential Tenancies.

This was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in 1846 a slave named Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in a St. Louis city court. They had lived with their owner, an army surgeon, at Fort Snelling, then in the free Territory of Wisconsin. The Scotts' freedom could be established on the grounds that they had been held in relationship for long time in a free territory and were then returned to a slave state. Courts had ruled this way in the past. However, what appeared to be a straightforward lawsuit between two private teams became an 11-year legal struggle that reach the highest point of an activity in one of the most well known decisions ever issued by the United States Supreme

As the lawyer for the development, my constitutional and public policy arguments would be to enlighten the resident in the small town on the number of jobs coming to the area, the economic growth to the town and the economy. I would also educate the residents on the laws that govern land use, the taking of property for public use, and compensating residents for the taking of their property. Moreover, I would educate the residents on the government’s authority to obtain control of private property, known as eminent domain. The taking clause of the Fifth Amendment has become a conflict on persons opposed to public restrictions on property, especially laws regulating land use.

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

It is important to note that in the passage before the “two ruler” argument, Mozi has already established the reasons why impartial

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

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.