Doris Reed bought a house for $76,000.00 from Robert King. Mr. King and his real estate agent failed to disclose to Mrs. Reed that a murder had taken place in the home ten years ago. Neighbors told Mrs. Reed about the murders and the stigma associated with the house after she moved in. The property appraised in the amount of $65,000.00 with reference to the history of the house. Reed sued King on allegations of misrepresentation for the purchase of the home seeking rescission and damages to terminate the contact.
The failure to talk to the justice of the peace is not evidence of fraud; see Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 453 at [26]. The other conduct by the agents did not amount to fraud either as a result the court finds in favor of the plaintiff thus requiring Mr Gray to pay the mortgage and pursue legal action against SHELLA LONERGAN in pursuit of recovery of funds, as Fraud must be shown to have been practised against the person who seek relief who in this case is Mr
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
The facts surrounding this case were obtained from both Reilly, and Zisko. It should be noted that Reilly failed to explain in his complaint how he was connected to the probate matter for which Zisko subpoenaed his employment records. The underlying matter that this complaint is related to is the “post-divorce case Elaine C. Menice vs. Jeffrey L. Menice, Plymouth Probate & Family Court Docket No. PL11D2044JP.”
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Facts of the case: The plaintiff was a housewife living in Livonia, Michigan along with her husband and children. She wanted to apply for divorce due to the difficulties in their marital life and informed her husband about divorce two months prior to this incident. On December 6, 1963, the defendant came to the plaintiffs’ house by introducing himself as “Dr. Wolodzko” who had never met the couple before. Except that, the plaintiff did not know that he was a psychiatrist or he was there to examine her as requested by her husband. The plaintiff spoke with the defendant on telephone by the suggestion of Livonia police woman due to the domestic quarrel with her husband and at that time he informed himself as a psychiatrist to the plaintiff.
Case name: Peter K. Dementas v The Estate of Jack Tallas, 764 P.2d 628 (1988)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
On September 12, 2014, Denise Rockett filed a complaint against Eugene Nigro, Esq. Nigro was reportedly negligent when handling legal matters in her late husband’s estate. Specifically, the complainant alleges that Denise, as Executrix of her late husband’s estate, was intentionally excluded from major decisions, not properly compensated, and deprived of control over their properties. Nigro allegedly breached his fiduciary obligation and violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.4(b), 1.7(b), and 8.4(c).
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Seventeen-year-old Mildred Jeter, who was African-Indian, and her childhood sweetheart, twenty-three-year-old white construction worker, Richard Loving were against Virginia's miscegenation laws banning marriage between blacks and whites. During 1924, interracial marriage was illegal in Virginia. The Racial Integrity Laws were designed in the South meaning that the white race and its purity was protected from racial mixtures. Mildred and Richard married on June 2, 1958, in Washington, D.C. After they returned to their hometown, Caroline County, they were arrested and charged with unlawful cohabitation. The couple was sued and imprison of violating the state's anti-miscegenation law. The punishment was a one year in jail or The court suspended the sentences, “a period of twenty-five years upon the provision that both accused leave Caroline County and the state of Virginia at once and do not return together or at the same time to said county and state for a period of twenty-five years."
Plessy v. Ferguson, a case where the U.S. Supreme Court, on May eighteen, 1896, by way of a seven-to-one bulk (one justice didn't participate), advanced the debatable sort but identical doctrine for examining the constitutionality of racial segregation laws and regulations. Plessy v. Ferguson was the first main inquiry into the significance of Fourteenth Amendment's (1868) equaled protection clause, that prohibits the states from questioning equal protection of the regulations to anyone within the jurisdictions of theirs. Although the vast majority opinion didn't include the expression individual but identical, it provided constitutional sanction to laws created to achieve racial segregation using individual and supposedly equal public services