Oak Ridge Constr. Co. V. Tolley (1985)

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.

Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract?

In the court case Tennessee v. Garner, states that the Supreme court established a standard review for evaluating claims of excessive force arising from deadly force incidents. (Ross, 2015) The justification for utilizing deadly force to stop a suspect from fleeing was discussed in this case. In the case regarding officer Smith and Billy, Officer Smith used deadly force to stop Billy from escaping the liquor store. Billy’s protected rights were violated in the case. Tennessee v. Garner states that it is not permissible to use deadly force to stop the escape of a felony suspect under all circumstances. The Supreme court also stated that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the fourth amendment reasonable requirement

The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. However, the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception. Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013)

There are four remedies for breach of contract under UCC Article 2. Categorized as remedies of law; the first is compensatory damages, which cover direct losses and costs. Compensatory damages are an attempt to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have been had they not suffered the breach. Second are consequential damages, which are to cover indirect and foreseeable losses not covered by compensatory damages. Third is restitution to prevent the unjust enrichment of one party in the agreement. Fourth, liquidated damages are provisions agreed to by the parties when drawing up the contract in the event of a default or breach of contract by either party (Melvin, 2011).

When first reading through the decisions in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) and Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952), it can be easy to reach the conclusion that they are inconsistent because in one the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President having law-making authority and in the other the Court ruled against the President being able to exert authority in making legislative decisions. However, it is the goal of this essay to explore how these decisions were actually compatible with one another. Both of these cases deal with executive authority and the power that a Commander in Chief has with or without Congressional oversight.

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.

On May 10, 1897, a train wrecked on Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad near Marthasville, Missouri. This train transported live animals. A conductor of the train informed a railroad track foreman that there was an accident and some steers were loose in the area and they needed to be recovered. This section of the railroad was serviced by a crew that included a track foreman Otto Housman (the defendant) and three trackmen – Housman’s two sons named Jim and George Housman, and Pleasant W. Clark (the plantiff). Mr.

The contract at the centre of Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66 is a deed of forgiveness of debt, in relation to the transfer of land. The parties to this contract were Neil York, who bought the interest in the land, and Bill York who sold the interest, and forgave the debt.

The information used in this report was collected by consulting multiple articles on the internet which are listed in the reference section of this report.

A party may move for Summary Judgment, on a particular claim, if it can prove that there is no actual dispute of a material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Any party, against whom a claim is sought, can seek full or partial summary judgment in his/her favour. Ind. R. Trial P. 56. Ford Motor Co. filed for summary judgment on 17 February 2005, and in August the court granted their motion to dismiss some of Stark’s claims. One involved the claim of cognitive injury to Cheyenne and the other was the Ford Taurus’ sudden acceleration. Stark v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C.App. 2010). Based on the findings in another case, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz, the court reversed its finding of a summary judgment in favour of the appellees, instead, concluding that the trial court had made an

In today 's business environment companies are choosing to renegotiate contracts rather than go to court to have the contracts enforced. A court remedy breach of contract can be lengthy, costly, and in the end no one wins. Companies such as Span Systems and Citizen-Schwarz (C-S) should have a clear understanding of contract laws, as well renegotiation practices designed to remedy breach of contract. Both parties are obligated to fulfill each part of the agreement, and failure to meet the terms of the contract by law can be consider a breach of contract. This breach can occur when parties such as Span Systems, whom fail to perform within the guidelines of the agreement.

For the contrary case of S&J, it bears similarity if there was an offer, acceptance, consideration and intention for there to be a contract relevant in this case. Once again, since the announcement was an invitation to treat, it was within NAP’s legal rights to accept or reject offers. Where S&J were unable to have their bottle tops and emails accepted, the suggestion that this was due to a withdrawal of the competition later that day is trivial. This argument is made stronger as NAP has the right not to accept offers in the first place. Since it was an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell, no legal consequences can be enforced even when the offer made by S&J was not accepted as NAP does not intend to be bound as soon as any “acceptance” is received. As a result, no contract has been formed between NAP and S&J6. Moreover, the requirements for consideration were not supported, as there was no intention to create legal relations due to the cancellation of the competition from NAP.

There are three basic issues that have been cleared , firstly, there is a valid contract between Iyer Associates and Nak Chuy we can say so because under the Company Act ,1956 there is transfer of assets and liabilities ,so the contract of Vishwakarma Hydraulics is transferred to Iyer Associates creating a valid contract between Iyer associates and Nak chuy. Secondly, there is breach of contract done by Iyer Associates as they do not make payments to Nak Chuy for the delivery of cranes they made and fulfilled the contracts. There was to be fulfilment of the contract but as the payment was not made it was Breached by Iyer Associates. Thirdly, the point that has been explained that there has to be payment done to Nak Chuy by the Iyer Associates as they had caused damages by not making the payments. The Iyer Associates are libel to pay the money to Nak Chuy along with the some amount of interest as compensation. Nak Chuy had entered into a valid contract and deserved its payment and compensation with some interest as it went through some damages.