Williams V Roffey Bros Case Summary

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

Facts: After Williams was arrested for the disappearance of a 10 year old girl police told his counsel that they would be transporting him from Davenport, Iowa where he was arraigned to Des Moines, Iowa where he was to be held with out questioning him about the case. Eventually after talking with the transporting officer he made incriminating statements and gave information on the area that the body of the child could be found. A large team of volunteers that was actually searching around the area where the body was found was then called off

This case is followed by the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is an organization that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on their jobs. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths.

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002)

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three Amendment made after the Civil War. It granted African-Americans the right to citizenship in the United States of America. This Amendment is made up of five parts. Starting with the first part, no one can be robbed of their property, life, or liberty and legally everyone has equal protection. This part of the amendment applies to citizens unless a law or trial is present to overturn those rights. The second part is Representatives in Congress are determined based on the number of people living in the states. The third part focuses on preventing anyone working in the government to be allowed to participate in insurrection or a rebellion against the United States. In part four of

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case deciding over the rule of slavery in newly discovered territory. The decision occurred in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The Decision took three attempts to finally reach a decision of whether an African American living in recently developed land should be free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, and the Scott v. Sandford Case, and what happened to slavery in the proceeding decades.

Along with protests, many people went to trials discussing what was legal, what was an injustice, and many other complaints regarding the issue of slavery. One particular case was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in many places with his owner. Shortly before his owner, Peter Blow’s death, Scott and his owner, moved back to slave territory (OI). Blow sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson just before he died. After working with Emerson, they moved to Illinois, a free state, where they stayed for many years (OI). They then moved farther up North the Mississippi River, where Scott even got married (OI). The Scotts moved back and forth betwixt different states, both free and slaves; Scott’s wife had her child in Fort Snelling

The instance of Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, honest to goodness case in which the U.S. Superior Court on March 6, 1857, decided that a slave who had stayed in a free state and area was not thusly fit the bill for his adaptability; that African Americans were not and could never be subjects of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise, which had declared free all areas west of Missouri and north of degree, was unlawful. The decision added fuel to the sectional dispute and drove the country closer to regular war.

The Supreme Court plays a critical role in defining the law of the land. Essentially, they are a set side political body that makes decisions based on moral correctness concerning the people. In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case however, we can overtly see that the Supreme Court’s ruling was immoral. This is concerning because Supreme Court justices do not face releelection. Likewise, their main purpose is to interpret the Constitution in a way that is representative of the people. The ruling of the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was unconstitutional because the justices acted based on their own personal beliefs rather than the reliance on the words of the Constitution, and popular opinion of the people.

The case of Mills v. Rogers has a significant importance in virtue of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the patients who are hospitalized at mental institutions. Despite the fact whether the patient was there voluntarily or contrary, Rogers believed that the institutions should respect the patient’s decision when it involved antipsychotic drug treatments. Rubie Rogers was a 36-year old black woman who voluntarily institutionalized herself at the Boston State Hospital (BSH). Rogers suffered from hallucinations along with delusions and acquired a history of thought disorder such as violent behavior. Before Mills v. Rogers, a prior lawsuit was filed.

When looking at the dilemma that appears in the case of Mary Beth versus William and Elizabeth Stern there is a moral and legal issue that arises. The judge was very broad in his ruling and was not able to put himself into the shoes of Mary Beth. When it comes to pregnancy, there is a connection that is established during the 9 months, between mother and child that is unexplainable and a maternal relationship that should not be broken. The morally right and just ruling would have been to give the child to the intended parents but allow Mary Beth, as the surrogate, visitation rights. The contract between the Stern family and Mary Beth implied that Mary Beth was doing a duty or a job and getting paid the equivalent of her duties. It stated that Mary Beth would

The discovery of unethical billing alongside unethical accounting practices provoked a chain reaction towards a hospital accountant by the name of Rehberg. An accountant trying to serve justice was entangled in a web of lies. Rehberg vs. Paulk is a very interesting Supreme Court case. Rehberg vs. Paulk embodied much of the injustice that is not presented to the public when sworn officials break the very laws that are supposed to be protected. The Rehberg vs. Paulk case provides controversy among different jurisdictions within the judicial system and gives examples of the different elements of crime within the case.

Roper v Simmons, Case Number 03-633 (ROPER V. SIMMONS (03-633), 2017), brought before the court October 13, 2004 to March 1, 2005, Roper who was the Superintendent at Potosi Correction Center and Christopher Simmons who is the juvenile offender at the time. Brief Summary of the crime, Christopher Simmons, who was junior in high school at the time of the crime, had told two of his friends that he wanted to kill someone. He planned out the crime, by doing a home invasion. He told his friends that they could break in like a burglary, tie their victim up and through the victim over the nearby bridge. He also, stated to his friends since we are minors we will get away with the crime. Simmons knew the person of interest because he was involved with

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of