Amelie Kemogne Summary

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court]

In R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of proper interpretation of s. 718.2(3) for the first time. The accused was an Aboriginal women charged with second-degree murder for the killing her common-law husband. Gladue’s defence counsel did not raise that she was an Aboriginal offender in his submissions on sentence at trial and she was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a ten-month weapon prohibition. Gladue appealed her sentence to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and again to the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1998. Although her appeal was dismissed again, the Court went to provide a framework for interpreting s. 718.2(e). In this case, it was determined that the Court was required to consider all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment for all offenders with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders generally and not only to those living on the reserves. In particular, there needs to be more emphasis on restorative justice, where community members and the victim will also be involved in the process. The Court is allowed to take into account prior findings of guilt when determining the appropriate sentences and in some offences prior guilt will create a higher minimum sentence, which the Court

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in case the judiciary did not see good enough reason to dismiss the appeal. I will present an explanation for why the CBA argued for an alternative to the mandatory minimum, how it relates to the submissions of the respondents, and the reasoning behind the specific exemption clause submitted.

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Loftin’s motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence. the evidence legally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction?

The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included

It is of great importance to discuss the challenges faced by indeterminate sentence prisoners maintaining factual innocence as it forms many questions revolving around the criminal appeals process and the adequacy of procedures as it pertains to the prison system, the Parole Board and the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC). I will discuss these issues in light of Stefan Kiszko and a comparison of both Canada 's and Australia 's appeal system.

To start off, one of the major observations done in this critical analysis of the Canadian criminal courts is the pre-trial process that is established behind the scenes of a criminal trail. That is to say, before all

The best way to describe the feeling I left the Tribunal with is that of disappointment. Disappointment that despite all the well-meaning rhetoric, guidance and procedural practice documents in existence on the subject of creating a fair and just environment, all I had witnessed had been depressingly one-sided and mechanical. Moments of genuine human interaction and care had existed, but were lost in a sea of legal jargon, aggressive questioning and “tick-box exercise” courtroom procedure. There was no heart to this hearing, no consideration of Mr. R as an equal human being. He was the subject of the day’s discussion, not it’s beneficiary. It angered me to some extent that Mr. R was afforded to opportunity to simply speak freely. To give a few words of context, or council to the stranger who would be deciding

A case filed between Brayden Volkenant, TWU, MacPherson, Cronk and Pardu JJ.A. as the Appellants and the Law Society of Upper Canada being the Respondent. There also existed interveners. The date of the case verdict was on June Sixth and on June Seventh of the year 2016.