Mari Pashanyan BLAW 308 McGregor v. Crumley 775 N.W.2d 91 (S.Ct.S.D. 2009) Facts Clint and Paige Crumply lived on a dairy farm in South Dakota. Clint Managed the farm and Paige worked with the cattle. Paige's Parents and a few others worked there as well. In 2007, Clint made a purchase of dairy cows from James McGregor. When McGregor delivered the cows to the farm, Paige handed him the payment for the cows. A while later, McGregor and clint entered into an oral contract for purchases of twenty-five dairy cows. When the dairy cows where delivered by McGregor's agent, Paige was not there. The agent gave the bill of ladling to Clint, which had both Clint and Paige as the Purchasers. A couple of days later, Clint returned eight cows back to McGregor because the cows where not well. McGregor gave a second bill for the remaining cows. This bill also had Clint and Page referenced as the purchasers. When Clint did not pay the bill, McGregor sued both Clint and Paige. Clint tried to settle the suit by returning the remaining cows, but McGregor did not accept the offer. Procedural history The trial court ruled in favor of McGregor. The trial court found that the evidence was weak, but since McGregor thought …show more content…
that he was doing business with both Clint and Paige, that Paige was a partner or purported partner in Clint's business. therefore, she was liable to pay for the dairy cows. Paige appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Issue The question is; is Paige a partner or a perpetual partner of Clint's Dairy business, and therefore liable under the contract to buy the cows? Rule The court used the rule of partnership and purported partnership to determine if Paige was liable. A partnership is formed when two or more people carry on as co-owners for a business to make a profit, whether or not the people in the partnership intended to form that partnership. To determine if the partnership between Clint and Paige was formed, the following rules apply: Joint Tenancy, Tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties,joint property,common property, or part ownership does not stable by itself a partnership, even if the co-owners share profit made by use of property. Sharing of gross returned does not by itself establish a partnership, even if the people sharing them have joint, common right or interest in property from which the returns are derived. A person who receives a share of profits of a business is presumed to be a partner in the business, unless the profits were received in payment: ii. For services as an independent contractor or of wages or other compensation to an employee. Also, a purported partner may be found jointly and severely liable under SDCL 48-7A-308 which states: a.
if a person, by word or conduct, purports to be a partner, or consents to being represented as a partner, in a partnership or with one or more persons not partners, the purported partner is liable to whom the representation is made, if that person is relying on the representation enters into a transaction with actual or perpetual partnership. If the representation, either by purported partner or a person with the purported partners consent, is made in public manner, the purported partner is liable to the person who relies on the purported partnership, even if the purported partner isn't aware of being a partner. Also, if partnership liability results, purported partner is liable with the respect to that liability as if the purported partner was a
partner. Analysis There was no evidence that Paige shared in the gross returns generated by the business or that she had common right in the cattle. There was no evidence that she shared in the title of the business or that she shared in the profits of the business. There was also no evidence that she was being payed as an employee. In trial Clint said that he operated the business on his own and made no indication that Paige was his partner. Clint was responsible for the debts and he made the decision to purchase the cows from McGregor during which the dispute occurred. There was no evident that Clint and Paige were partners in any document form or that the farm was operated as a partnership. McGregor only assumed that the two where partners because they where married and worked on the dairy farm together. Paige never did or said anything that could make McGregor think that she was a partner and for him to place her name on the purchases of dairy cows. Conclusion The court reversed their judgment in favor of Paige Crumley. They found no sufficient evidence to prove that Clint and Page where in a partnership or purported partnership or that Paige did or said anything that could suggest that there was any type of partnership.
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
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
Partnership – “A legal entity formed by two or more co-owners to operate a business for profit.” (Longenecker, Petty, Palich, Hoy, Pg. 202) In a partnership, the advantage for the owners is the capability to reduce the workload and the financial burden, especially if each partner has management skills that enhances the business. The disadvantages of a partnership such as personal conflicts and leadership expectations, therefore this organizational form should only be chosen once all other options have been considered.
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
prosecuting against Cates and Drummond is defending him. After days of battle, the verdict is
When determining the characteristics of the accused, under the totality of circumstances The Second Circuit analysis the accused individual experience, background, age, education and intelligence. Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1988). In Green, the court ruled Green’s confession as voluntary. Id. at 894. The court describes Green’s charter: a twenty-three-year-old who had familiarity with the criminal system, street-smart with above average intelligence. Id. at 902. Moreover, in Ortiz, the court ruled Ortiz’s confession was voluntary. Ortiz v. Kelly, 687 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.N.Y 1988). The court describes Ortiz characteristics as an adult familiar with the criminal system, had the capacity to reason, think, and be at his own will. Id. at 66. Therefore, Ortiz’s characteristics did not impair his confession. Id. However, the court in Lewis held that Lewis conviction for bank robbery might have been coerced into an involuntary confession. Lewis v. Henderson, 520 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1975). The court used the combination of Lewis’ s
McCulloch v. Maryland is the record of one of several federalism court cases, which concern states' rights over the federal government. On March 6, 1819, the record was delivered by chief justice John Marshall, in the light of the huge debts the United States incurred after the War of 1812 against Britain. The holding of the Court was in favor of the Second Bank of United States.
There have been many court cases that follow along the lines of when and how to use the proper amount of force and if any force is necessary. However, “there rare occasions where an officer's observations and actions get reviewed, scrutinized, and solidified”(“Understanding Graham v. Connor” 1). “By using the “Graham standard” an officer must know when to apply constitutionally appropriate levels of force”(“Understanding Graham v. Connor” 3).
Court’s Decision: This case was decided without going to trial by three judges and they decided in favor