Francis B. Palmer made his will naming his daughters, the plaintiffs, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston heirs to a small portion of his estate. Majority of the estate was named under Elmer Palmer, his grandson and the defendant in the case. Elmer was fully aware of this will and when he sensed his grandfather’s intention to make changes to the will, he murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. The majority and dissenting judges agree to the statute which states that “The statute stipulates that anyone named in a will should inherit, except in cases of fraud, duress or incapacity at the time the will was made” (Module 1). The criminal aspect of the case is very clear and Elmer has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the criminal act of murder. …show more content…
However, the issue which has to be decided by the judges at this point is if Elmer can inherit the property in accordance with the will. Majority of the judges are represented through the writing of Justice Earl. The argument stated is that “No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime” (Riggs V Palmer Case para 7). Francis B. Palmer had the full right to enjoy his property until his natural death as well as the right to make changes to his will as per his wishes and there should have been no interference with that. If Elmer is given permission to inherit the estate, it would be a violation to the universal law. Justice Earl emphasizes that lawmakers could never intend a murderer to benefit from his crime. Laws are intended to be a written moral code which protects people and benefits for the greater good. The law, similar to morality is not without flaw. There are laws that apply to society’s sensibility but are not explicitly written. The Dissenting judges are represented through the writings of Justice Gray. The argument stated is that “In the absence of such legislation here, the courts are not empowered to institute such a system of remedial justice” (Case para 20). A law is not a law until it has been written, to preserve the legal system of law, Elmer Palmer should receive the estate. Although society’s conscience and morals do not allow Elmer to receive the estate, society must understand that there are rigid rules in place explained explicitly and must be followed. Since there is no mention of committing a murder to inherit an estate in the statute, an additional significant punishment can not be created for Elmer Palmer. Moreover, Elmer is already being punished for the murder and the court is not permitted to increase this without a written statute. From the two opposing views, I believe the majority of the judges make the strongest case because if Elmer Palmer would be allowed to keep the inheritance of Francis B.
Palmer, the law would be promoting injustice. This would encourage criminals who want possession of an estate immediately to murder their loved ones which is unjust to the victims. The legislature would not intend for this injustice to happen. Everything can not be predetermined by lawmakers and as situations arise to which there is no written or stated law, the court should modify the law to favor justice. The controversies present in this case are similar to that of equality vs. equity. Although society claims to have equality amongst people, sometimes equity is needed instead. All situations are different and the outcomes should depend on the circumstances. The Riggs V Palmer case has been revolutionary in history. and if the majority judges were not favored, …show more content…
then Ronald Dworkin offers a “third theory of law” which is an alternate to legal positivism and natural theory law. He claims that there is a connection between law and morality. His focus was not just on legal systems but on how the judges that make decisions interpret those laws. The case Riggs V Palmer represents his theories accordingly. The majority judges interpret the statute as if one can not enjoy an estate through fraud, duress or incapacity then murdering to gain an estate is morally wrong and ethically wrong, therefore it should be legally wrong. Whereas the dissenting judges interpret the statute as; neither did Elmer take part in fraud, duress or incapacity and therefore he should be able to inherit his grandfather’s estate. The dissenting judges stressed the fact that laws are rigid and should be enforced, therefore the law of wills states that the will must be carried out as the deceased last wrote. Another aspect of Dworkin’s theory is that law consists of rules and principles. The rules are applied as an all or nothing case and principles is the general idea in which morals and values lie. The case of Riggs V Palmer clearly illustrates the difference between rules and principles. The majority judges supported the principles by not allowing Elmer Palmer to inherit the estate. The dissenting judges were arguing that Elmer Palmer should not be given additional punishment and the rules should be applied according to the will which state that Elmer is the heir and shall inherit the estate. However, in the end the court decides not to apply the the rule and relies on the principle that a wrongdoer should not be able to profit from his wrongdoing. There was no written statute stating this but the interpretation of principles and the moral good created this governing legal principle. This case also illustrates that principles determine how rules are applied, as mentioned before circumstances alter rules and that is where principles help individuals do justice. Dworkin also explains the modification of laws through ‘a chain novel’. This is mainly the idea that a judge writes an additional chapter in the novel where the chapters’ prior have been written by other different authors and this newly written chapter should not only be consistent with the other chapters but also a great addition to the book. From a legal positivist’s perspective there would have been no connection between morality and law.
The legal positivists have completely different perspectives compared to interpretivism. Hart would view the case as the dissent judges did, if Elmer is being punished for the murder, why increase the punishment. Since Hart’s separation thesis states that morals are connected to laws, he would not agree to the fact that Elmer was given additional punishment for the doing the moral wrong of murder for an estate. Hart states that “the legal system is a ‘closed logical system’ in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules by logical means alone” (Module of hart). In the case of Riggs V Palmer, the predetermined rules were going against society’s sensibility of right and wrong. However legal positivists claimed that the ‘law is blind’ and no additional amendments should take place to accommodate this case. Moreover, Hart states that moral judgements can not be used as statements of fact to defend or to be used as evidence or proof. The conventionality thesis does not allow society’s instincts to make decisions of the
law. The case of Riggs V Palmer reminds society that the legal system is not perfect and the constitution can not think of every law possible. However, the system created contains the highest moral intentions. Cases similar to Riggs V Palmer allows the legal system to create laws which will be implemented further. Hard cases similar to this case allow the implementation of strict laws and rules which ultimately provides justice and promotes peace in the world.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
The case was unfair in my opinion because, the state assumed Peterson murdered Kathleen after his fourth wife disappeared. In the initial autopsy of Kathleen, it was found that there was no murder and Kathleen death was accidental drowning. Furthermore, Kathleen was exhumed after three years of her death which also contends the states were only basing their hunch’s off the disappearance of Stacy. To add to the unfairness of the trial, when The defendant's motion asked the court to clarify whether it ruled under the common law doctrine when the courts ruled that some of the hearsay could be admissible, during a hearing held the same day, the court stated, “I didn't even get to that. There was no request as to any of the others. I ruled strictly pursuant there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.” This entire statement from the court shows the motion to consider was not affectively
The decision in the Gibbons v. Ogden case is, in my opinion, a very just
The court ruled in favor of the Norton family, in the amount of 10,807$ for the mother, and 13,000$ for the father in wrongful death of the daughter, baby Robyn Bernice Norton. The court ruled against the nurse, physician and hospital all of whom were found liable for the death of the infant. The awards to the family was later reduced to $5,807 and $5,000. The reason being that the Norton family already had three children and Robyn was only with them for three months so the attachment was low. This being said the courts found the Nortons were more than capable of have more children in the
Robert Baltovich was wrongly convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, in Scarborough, Canada. He was arrested on November 19, 1990, and charged for first-degree murder. On March 31, 1992, he was convicted of second-degree murder. Finally, on April 22, 2008, he was found not guilty of the murder.
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public.
Facts: Twenty one year old, University of Wyoming college student, Matthew Shepard, died October 12, 1998 at 12:53 a.m. after spending five days in a comma due to massive injuries and head trauma in a robbery and hate crime assault (Matthew Shepard, 2000 [on-line]). Matthew Shepard met Aaron McKinney (22) and Russell Henderson (21) of Laramie in a local bar called Fireside Lounge. McKinney and Henderson had been drinking. The two led Shepard to believe they were gay and lured Shepard to their truck. McKinney pulled out a gun and said, Guess what- we’re not gay and you’re gonna get jacked. McKinney then told Shepard to give him his wallet. When Shepard refused, McKinney hit him with the gun. With Henderson behind the wheel, McKinney continued to strike Shepard. McKinney then told Henderson to get a rope out of the truck. McKinney allegedly tied Shepard’s beaten body to a wooden split-rail post fence, robbed him of his wallet and patent leather shoes, continued to beat him and left him to die for over 18 hours. Chasity Vera Pasley (20) and Krista Lean Price (18), the suspect’s girlfriends, hid the bloody shoes of Henderson and provided the suspects with alibis. Shepard’s shoes, coat and credit card were found in McKinney’s pick-up truck; his wallet was found in McKinney’s home. A .357 Magnum was also found in McKinney’s home (Matthew Shepard, 2000 [on-line]).
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
Butler was one of many to be accused of a crime he didn’t commit. In 1993, a woman got
Andrews N, ‘Does a third party beneficiary have a right in English law?’ (1988) 8 Legal Studies 14
Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ... operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old
Purpose - To prove negligence of both General Palmer Railroad and engineer Lee Thompson in regards to the accident that killed John Goodson. To prove that current railroad regulations and procedures are not adequate to prevent grade crossing accidents.
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