Fred Nicks’ will is probably invalid because it was the product of undue influence. The O.C.G.A. concerning undue influence states “a will must be freely and voluntarily executed; anything which destroys the testator’s freedom of volition, such as ... any undue influence whereby the will of another is substituted for the wishes of the testator, invalidates a will.” O.C.G.A. § 53-2-6 (1995). To demonstrate undue influence, the individual contesting the will must show “both that the decedent was susceptible to undue influence and that undue influence was in fact exercised.” Hawkins v. Hodges, 102 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 1958). In the case of Fred Nicks it is assumed that he was susceptible to undue influence. Nora Blake, the testator’s neighbor, probably …show more content…
Dean, 327 S.E.2d at 214. In Dean, the propounder had a close relationship with the testator in which she lived in the testator’s home, kept house for him, paid his bills, and attended to his personal and business affairs. The court ruled this insufficient to prove undue influence as the facts in question provided only mere suspicion of undue influence, which is not enough to prove that undue influence was actually exercised. However, in Hawkins, 102 S.E.2d at 17, the court did find evidence of undue influence after it was noted the propounder frequently stayed with the testator in the hospital for the two weeks prior to the execution of the will. The court ruled undue influence could have been exercised because the propounder tried to prevent other relatives of the testator from spending any time with testator and was overheard making statements to the testator that were described as playing on her emotions. …show more content…
King, 150 S.E.2d at 633. However, the courts have also noted that a testator leaving their children ”nominal bequests even though they were not disliked or disfavored” is some evidence that undue influence has been exercised. Skelton, 308 S.E.2d at 839. In Skelton, the court found evidence of undue influence when three of the testator’s four children were left only nominal bequests. However, in King, the court ruled that although the testator left her neighbor her estate instead of her family, there was evidence that the testator felt her family had abandoned her, and that the propounder had been taking care of her needs. King 150 S.E.2d at 632. Although Nora Blake was assisting the testator with some of the same tasks as the propounder in King, there was no evidence that Mr. Nicks’ daughter was disliked or disfavored. In fact, their relationship was described as good. On multiple occasions Mr. Nicks’ daughter offered to visit her father and help with his needs, but Mr. Nicks always told her that he would let her know if he needed anything. Courts would most likely view this case as more analogous to Skelton, as Fred Nicks’ only daughter, although not disliked,
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
While the widely exposed and discussed trials of WorldCom's and Tyco's top executives were all over the media, one of the most interesting cases of securities fraud was happening without any public acknowledgement.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
Facts: The petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Political Association (CPA), reorganized the Association into the Communist Party through changing its policies of peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to into the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party. The Communist Party set itself apart from other political parties by disregarding the normal process of change set forth by the constitution. From the literature, statements, and activities of the petitioners, the Communist Party leaders, it is clear that their goal was to achieve a successful overthrow of the government of the United States through the use of force and violence.
After a four year hiatus in the Supreme Court docket, the court finally rule in 1824, the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, which eventually proclaimed the federally supremacy clause and the commerce clause, but it's impact of American commerce can still be felt today.
Intent can be misinterpreted or the violation may be unintentional but in both Greber and Bay State, the intent to violate was clearly established. In Greber, the defendant interpreted the results and claimed that the physicians were paid for the interpretation of the results. This is a blatant act of deceit. In Bay State, the defendant Felci intentionally concealed the fact that he had a relationship with Bay State and conducted inappropriate acts including voting for the Bay State contract while serving of the board without disclosing the relationship, providing false information to the Board regarding the contract and receiving gifts and moneys during the
Is it wrong to make a child deaf by design? How much leeway should parents have in selecting the characteristics of their child (when it comes to aspects of identity)? Should they have any? These are just a couple of difficult questions posed by Sandel. Presenting a similar case, Sandel discusses the case of an infertile couple seeking an egg donor. They sought a very specific type of donor, going as far as requesting an achieved SAT score. In both of these cases, the outcomes are still susceptible to a certain degree natural variation and uncertainty. Does this element of unpredictability add to the moral correctness of these cases?
...d, ‘so far as the threshold conditions are concerned, the factor which seems to me to outweigh all others is the prospect than an unidentified, and unidentifiable, carer may inflict further injury on a child he or she has already severely damaged’. This approach was later applied in Merton LBC v K .
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
Palmer, the defendant, claimed that he has the right to the property according to the law because he was named the heir in the will (Riggs v Palmer). The plaintiffs, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, however brought this action before the court to fight against this will, for they believed that Palmer should no longer be entitled to the property, which he so wrongfully gained. The objective of the statute is to address issues concerning wills so that testators could carry out their final wishes by passing their property off to their loved ones (Riggs v Palmer). This fact is what gave rise to different arguments from the majority to the dissenting judges. The issues were how to interpret the law rationally, and whether Palmer, who murdered his grandfather should be entitled to the property. The judges believed that although the law at that time did not address the issue of what would happen to the property in the event that the heir murdered the testator, to allow such a thing would never be the intention of legislators (Riggs v Palmer). Had legislators ever
Accessed 16/03/2012. http://www.law201.co.uk/95.pdfaccessed on 16/03/2012. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199219742/01student/mindmaps/loveland_mindmaps_royal_prerogative.pdfaccessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 18/03/2012.