1000 Sentences With "appellant" | Random Sentence Generator

"Even assuming for a moment that the appellant wanted to have a child only after two years, does not mean that the appellant and the respondent cannot and should not have sexual intercourse," the court found.

In [redacted] 2013, Appellant [redacted] received two additional NSLs from the FBI.

But Mooppan said the appellant is over-reading the Dodd-Frank provision.

Before that ruling, the identity of the appellant in the case was unknown.

Appellant also bragged of having forced both girls to engage in oral sex with him… When Christina asked the group what happened to the girls, appellant told her that they had been killed so that they could not identify their attackers.

Both Joe and Christina noted that appellant complained of the difficulty group encountered in killing the girls.

Appellant related that after another gang member sexually assaulted the second girl, he "turned her around" and anally raped her.

Shakir's Israeli lawyer, Michael Sfard, said that was what the case boiled down to, as "deporting the appellant means deporting the organization".

"He stated, rather surprisingly, that he was open to ideas as to how to diagnose and treat the Appellant," the court wrote.

"Given the DOJ's own recent investigations, prosecutions, and convictions involving Appellant and his affiliates, including the prosecution of Michael Cohen, in which Appellant was referenced as an unindicted co-conspirator, the DOJ cannot (and does not) join in Appellant's claim to an absolute immunity," Vance and his colleagues wrote in a submission to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The cumulative effect of these errors deprived appellant of his right to a fair trial," Justice Nancy M. Saitta wrote in a unanimous opinion.

Sherri B. Simpson is a mom, bankruptcy lawyer, daughter, citizen, and dog lover living in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and she is the appellant in Simpson v.

CREDO Mobile, a phone company that donates some of its revenue to progressive causes, announced last November that it was the other appellant in the EFF case.

However, appellant Carlos Bowles said in his appeal ECB rules did not allow for Straub to be directly appointed to the role of coordinator of the counsel.

After appellant related the difficulty he encountered in strangling one of the girls, he said that he put his foot on her throat because she would not die.

"We conclude that defendant-appellant has not made the requisite showing for a stay pending appeal so we deny that motion," a panel of the appeals court said in its ruling.

"There can be no doubt that the questions Appellant wishes to present to the Supreme Court in his petition are not only 'substantial' but ones of exceptional importance," the filing reads.

"The court declines to exercise its authority under [a federal court rule] because appellant has not shown that immediate relief before resolution of his expedited appeal is warranted," the court said.

In the current scheme of things, the misuse of PMLA is reminiscent of an ancient Roman phrase - "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" - which loosely translates to: they create desolation, and call it peace.

Despite saying they wanted to respect "the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland," the judges also stressed they were "sharply divided" on the outcome, ruling 3-2 against the appellant.

India's bankruptcy code though does not allow an appellant to withdraw a case once admitted, as other creditors stand to lose out if one party reaches a private settlement in such cases.

"The IAAF continues to comply with the Swiss Federal Tribunal's order dated 31 May to suspend the DSD Regulations in as far as they apply to the appellant," the ruling body said.

"The appellant has already suffered what the Court of Appeal considered a just punishment for the offense in respect of which he would be re-tried," the court said in its ruling.

"Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the 'right' to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe," he said. 5.

Rottier did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment "It is a very good signal that the ECB decided to annul this appointment, that was not in line with a merit-based-recruitment process," appellant Carlos Bowles said.

"The claims made in this case by the appellant are groundless and the rejection by the district court was justifiable," high court judge Yoshihiro Toyosawa wrote in a 16-page decision for a three-judge panel, affirming the trial court's decision.

Judge James L. Graham, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, who served on the appellant panel and dissented, noted the possibility that unsealing the grand jury testimony could affect people who are still living.

Today the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge to an appellant court decision that it had conspired with five publishers to increase e-books prices — meaning Apple now faces having to stump up a previously agreed $450 million settlement.

Appellant then elaborated that it would have been easier with a gun, but because they did not have one at the scene of the incident, he took off one of his shoelaces and strangled at least one of the girls with it.

Instead, here is the text of her motion: Motion to Use Female Pronouns When Addressing Appellant I am a woman and not referring to me as such leads me to feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity.

"This appeal is triggered by the desire to stand against the malfunctioning affecting ECB's appointment process, resulting into widespread perception of favoritism and complaints of lack of transparency and unsound rules," appellant Carlos Bowles said in his appeal, filed in March and seen by Reuters.

"The President of the court took into account the setbacks of all types that the appellant, already aged 34, would suffer if (he) was prevented from participating in a competition that will be the culmination of his career as a footballer," it said in a statement.

"Beyond vague representations of a desire to commit a terrorist act, made almost exclusively to an undercover agent posing as a love interest, Rayyan never took any action that could remotely be considered an 'initial step' toward the planning of an attack," his attorneys wrote in their appellant brief.

Afterward, he joyfully bragged about the crime to Joe Cantu, one of the gang member's brothers, and Joe's wife Christina, as described in a 1997 state appeals court ruling upholding Medellín's conviction: [Christina] asked the group what had occurred and appellant responded that they "had fun" and that their exploits would be seen on the television news.

The appellant, Nishimura Ekiu, then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The case was heard before the Supreme Court, with Lyman I. Mowry representing the appellant and Assistant Attorney General Packet representing the United States. The court ruled against the appellant. The court agreed with the appellant that an appellant had the right to challenge, with a writ of habeas corpus, any unlawful detention.

From February to April, appellant drove himself from Würzburg to Schweinfurt. Appellant's CSM sought an appropriate position for appellant, and in late May or early June 2008, appellant began duties at the housing office in Schweinfurt, where he worked until his trial in April 2009. During this timeframe appellant was granted several leaves; however, he was not permitted to travel outside Germany. On 16 September 2008 appellant's command preferred court-martial charges against appellant. On 8 October 2008 appellant waived his right to an Article 32 pretrial investigation hearing (a prerequisite to trial by general court-martial).

Thereafter he had taken the money out of the cash-box and ran away. The second appellant had waited outside for him with a car, and, after first appellant had climbed in, driven him speedily away. The second appellant had known that the first appellant had the pistol and that it might be used. On charges of murder and robbery, it appeared that both offenses had been committed and they were convicted on both charges and sentenced.

The complainant, fearful for her life, again tried to calm down the appellant by pretending that there was some hope of reconciliation. They engaged in intercourse shortly later, but the complainant stated that she engaged in intercourse only to prevent further violence by the appellant. She later filed charges against the appellant for rape.

Appellant was denied leave to accompany his wife back to the U.S. However, his wife returned to live with appellant in Germany a few weeks later. By April, appellant was again assigned family quarters in Schweinfurt and received his household goods from storage. From February to May 2008, appellant's primary duty was to report daily to his CSM.

The respondent sued the appellants out of the High Court for her damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained when she slipped and fell in a shopping mall owned by the first appellant and cleaned by the second appellant. The respondent alleged that the second appellant was negligent in failing to detect and remove the spillage in the passage, and that the first appellant was vicariously liable for the negligence of the second appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court held that the appellants were jointly and severally liable to the respondent. The appellants appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The court held, therefore, that the appellant had been rightly convicted.

The complainant managed to calm him down by holding out hope of some sort of reconciliation and engaging in intercourse with the appellant. The complainant reported the incident to the police, but no charges were laid. On October 15, 1982, the appellant again broke into the complainant's house. The appellant picked up a butcher knife and entered the complainant's bedroom.

By the end of 1387, the Lords Appellant had banished de Vere.

DeLay, Appellant v. Texas, Appellee (Opinion), No. 03-11-00087-CR, Tex.

On the issue of the seizure, the appellant argued that it was entitled to rely on rei vindicatio in relation to some of the items that had belonged to it. The problem faced by the appellant was that the first and second respondents were in possession of the goods in terms of an agreement with the appellant, which agreement had not been cancelled. The appellant further relied on copyright for the relief sought in the application. Counsel was, however, unable to refer to any prayer relating to or based on copyright infringement.

And as appellees could not escape liability if it was foreseeable that appellant would suffer further injury, appellant was entitled to prove that appellees' conduct proximately caused her injuries, even if the parent's intervening act was the actual cause. Finally, appellant was entitled to show that appellees failed to exercise due care in not reporting her injuries to authorities who would have shielded her from further harm.

The appellant, John Sansregret and the complainant lived together. Their relationship had been one of contention and discord with violence on the part of the appellant: "slappings" or "roughing up" in his description, "blows" in hers. On September 23, 1982, the complainant decided to end their relationship. A few days later the appellant became furious and attacked the complainant with a file-like object.

The rule was later discharged by the court; the appellant appealed against this ruling. The first and second respondents had been party to a partnership agreement with the appellant, and wished to withdraw from this agreement. The appellant was prepared to buy them out, but insisted that they agree to a restraint-of-trade clause. The first and second respondents refused to do this.

Para 46 at 285H-I. The first appellant had therefore not been negligent, and the damage complained of was caused solely by the negligent act or omission of the second appellant.Para 45 at 285E - F. The SCA held, accordingly, that the court a quo had erred in holding the first appellant liable. Its finding in relation to the second appellant could, however, not be faulted.

The convening authority referred appellant's case to a general court-martial on 5 January 2009. Appellant was arraigned on 11 January 2009, 119 days after preferral of charges. At arraignment, appellant requested a trial date in early February 2009.

It was argued on appeal, on behalf of the appellant, that Siljeur had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and that the appellant therefore escaped liability to the respondent.

Louis-Dreyfus was married twice.Legal Eagle: PORGES v. LOUIS-DREYFUS, 280 A.D. 277 (1952) Dolores N. Porges, Appellant-Respondent, v. Guy P. Louis-Dreyfus, Respondent-Appellant, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

The appellant in this case was a Burmese national who arrived in Ireland on 16th July 2008. He applied for refugee status - this was refused and on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in 2009. The appellant sought a judicial review of that decision - this judicial review application was upheld in July 2013. The appellant then needed to restart the application process which resulted in a further refusal.

PJ Olsen appeared as counsel for the appellant, and P. Ellis for the respondents.

By claiming the Federal Farm Loan Act unconstitutional, the appellant created a federal suit.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NANCY RISH, Defendant-Appellant.

The appellant, an Amish employer, sued the Federal Government of the United States following an assessment for unpaid Social Security taxes, claiming that the imposition of such taxes violated his freedom of conscience. The District Court had found in favor of the appellant.

Much more was said by the appellant on appeal, in the numerous contradictions between the police witnesses on matters of detail. The appellant asked the court to conclude, from the contradictions, that the version of the police witnesses could not be accepted.

8208, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,443. BATJAC PRODUCTIONS INC., a California Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

This case involved a child "A", suing by her mother and next friend (the appellant). The appellant was born in Ireland in 2010 and was the child of a Nigerian national, who came to Ireland in 2005. The appellant applied for asylum in Ireland, which application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner in July 2011. The application for asylum was rejected on the basis that: > (a) The appellant was born [in Ireland] and has never been to Nigeria and > has never suffered persecution; (b) State protection would be available to > the appellant against circumcision if her mother opposed it, according to > country of origin information; (c) the threat from the family in the village > could be avoided by returning to another location in Nigeria such as Edo > State.

Although everyone can take action, the appellant must meet certain requirements: The appellant must allege that their above- mentioned constitutional rights have been violated by an act of German (not EU) public authorities (be it executive, judicial or legislative). The appellant needs to be affected \- himself, \- currently, and \- immediately. The latter requirement will normally only be met by constitutional complaints against judgments and against acts of the executive. Laws are normally not self-executing.

The government in this case has shown no 'exigent' circumstances which would justify not obtaining an arrest warrant during the six-day interim period between the 17th of August and the day of the actual arrest. The arrest of the appellant was in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thirdly, appellant attacks the voluntariness of his consent to search. At the time appellant consented to the search, he was under arrest.

The appellant did not present any argument on the appeal because the appellant, according to reports, was no longer alive. Consequently, it appears to be the law in Pakistan that persons convicted under § 295-C must be sentenced to death with or without a fine.

Louis-Dreyfus was born in Paris in 1932. Legal Eagle: PORGES v. LOUIS-DREYFUS, 280 A.D. 277 (1952) Dolores N. Porges, Appellant-Respondent, v. Guy P. Louis-Dreyfus, Respondent-Appellant, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Since the trial judge found as a matter of fact that the appellant held the honest belief that consent had been freely given, a finding that the appellant was willfully blind to whether consent had been given involved a judgement on an issue of fact.

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jonathan David Brown, Defendant-appellant. Retrieved December 19, 2009.

In practice, the appellant frequently submits a rejoinder and in consequence the administration submits a surrejoinder.

The dispute centered on whether or not the appellant held himself out or was employed as an agent personally responsible for monies on all cement sold out to customers on credit. The first count of the perjury charge was with regard to the money the Plaintiff (a company in Germany) transferred to the appellant in Lagos. The appellant said in his evidence that the alleged money had been transferred before his return to Lagos from Germany. Exhibit ‘AA’ and ‘BB’ which were letters written by the appellant corroborated his evidence that he was still awaiting a transfer of the money two weeks after his return to Lagos.

His summary of the factual elements of the case includes the following: > Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed > appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an > area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant > to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified > that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious and we > had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim > to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any > reason to believe that he was armed.

In S v Grobler en 'n Ander (1966), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the first appellant had entered a café with a pistol in his hand and threatened the café owner’s daughter-in-law. The owner’s son grappled with the first appellant, who had fired two shots at him, one in his thigh and the other at the back of his head. The owner then came out of the residential quarters with a shot gun and fired one shot at first appellant who ducked and in doing so was missed. The first appellant then pressed his pistol against the owner’s head and shot him dead.

May 5, 2014. United States Of America Ex Rel. John Dee Spicer, Chapter 7 Trustee, Substituted As Qui Tam Plaintiff And Relator Per #122 Order, Trustee, for the Bankruptcy Estate of Westbrook Navigator, Plaintiff–Appellant–Appellee, v. Clifford Westbrook, Qui Tam Plaintiff And Relator, Plaintiff–Appellant, v.

The appellant was an alcoholic. He had spent the day drinking large quantities of alcohol with two friends. The friends then retired to the appellant's home and went to sleep. The appellant claimed he was woken by one of the friends, McCloskey, hitting him on the head.

The appellant was nine years old when the "sexual experimentation" began with his sister, who was aged seven at the time. This carried on until shortly after the appellant reached the age of adult responsibility. In 1991, the appellant's mother expressed concern that her youngest daughter (J), then aged three, might have been sexually abused by the appellant. A social worker and psychologist reported their findings of these accusations to the Garda Síochána (the police) in January 1992.

Less than three months after the issuance of the certificate, the appellant married, and about a month later, in March 1976, he arrived in the UK at London Heathrow Airport and was granted leave by an immigration officer to enter the country for an indefinite period. The officer did not ask if the appellant was married and neither did the appellant volunteer this information. A son was subsequently born in Pakistan to the appellant and his wife, and in 1978 the appellant's wife and son applied for permission to join the appellant in the UK. At that point, the validity of the appellant's entry into the country in 1976 was queried. Following investigations, he was detained with a view to removal from the UK on the ground that he had obtained an entry certificate by deception.

He was prima facie a servant of the appellant and consequently, when he wrongfully purported to arrest the respondent, the appellant became prima facie liable. It was then for the appellant to show that, in committing the wrongful act, Van der Westhuizen was engaged upon a duty or function of such a nature as to take him out of the category of servant pro hac vice. In order for the duty or function to take Van der Westhuizen out of the category of servant, it had to be one which was personal to Van der Westhuizen, in the sense that, from its very nature, the appellant was so deprived of the power to direct and control him in the carrying out of his duty or function that Van der Westhuizen could not be regarded pro hac vice as a servant of the appellant. Van der Westhuizen had, at all material times, when he was about police business, been under the command, supervision and control of his seniors, and thus under the control of the appellant.

R. Evid. Serv. 1149, UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Campbell HEARST, Defendant- Appellant. Nos.

The respondents did the same work for the third respondent that they had done for the appellant.

Sylvia H. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Clark M. CLIFFORD, as Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees. No. 20737.

A. HORMEL & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 79-1959.; United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.: Argued Nov.

The court argued that Hatch's appointment and his testimony were valid, and therefore ruled against the appellant.

We can but hope for the sake of the appellant and the family of the murdered girl that her killer may yet be identified and brought to justice. But for now all we can do is to quash the conviction. It is accordingly quashed. The appellant will be discharged.

The obvious answer was that appellant had omitted to see that the cage was at all times in a good and safe condition. Furthermore, the reasonable man would, under the circumstances in which appellant found himself, have seen to it that the cage was at all times safe, and in a proper condition. This omission to act as the reasonable man amounted, in the State's view, to negligence, for which appellant could be held criminally responsible.See Rex v Meiring 1927 AD 41.

The appellant, who was responsible for auditing a company's accounts, had pre-signed an incomplete form which was later submitted to the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The High Court held that the disciplinary committee had failed to take into account all the relevant considerations. In particular, the appellant had reviewed the form and had probably completed part of it. The disciplinary committee had apparently not considered this as they had concluded that the appellant had signed a form "in blank" in advance.

In 2004 the appellant and respondent began a same-sex relationship but at no point entered into a civil partnership. In 2008, following a course of intrauterine insemination the respondent gave birth to a baby girl (known throughout the case as 'B'). The respondent undertook most of the care for B but the appellant effectively acted as a co-parent to the child and helped to share the responsibilities. In 2011 the relationship broke down acrimoniously and the appellant left the family home.

James Theodore EAGLE, Appellant, No. 78-1405. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit., Decided Oct. 24, 1978.

On this basis the appellant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In view of the time lapse between the period these letters were written and the period the appellant gave his oral evidence the Supreme Court was of view that the appellant memory might have been playing him false. Apart from the lapse of time which affects memory the court was also of the opinion that even if the evidence on this point was false it may not be a basis for culpability unless it is shown that such evidence was deliberately made with knowledge of its falsehood. And more importantly the court found that even if the evidence was false it was not material to the issue in dispute. The second count for the perjury charge was with regard to the evidence of the appellant that he (the appellant) and the respondent agreed not to start business until the formation of a new Company by the appellant.

290, ii. 258, 264 His ties to Richard ultimately resulted in his downfall, as the anti- Richard Lords Appellant effectively took control of the government and imprisoned, exiled, or executed most of Richard's court. Despite Richard's efforts, Brembre was executed in 1388 for treason at the behest of the Lords Appellant.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the reorganization court's decision with an even split. Appellant then petitioned the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found for the appellant, Harry Connick, Sr., and ruled that the prosecutor's office is not liable.

In the Court of Appeal, the appellant also > relied upon cl.9 of the printed ticket terms and conditions.

LYMAN C. SMITH, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al., Respondents, 25 Wash. 300, 65 P. 612, 1901 Wash.

The Attorney-General and Bryan Clauson appeared for the appellant; Richard Wilberforce and John Knox appeared for the respondent.

The SCA pointed out that the mere fact that former employees take up employment with a competitor does not in itself entitle the appellant (the former employer) to any relief if all they will be doing is to apply their skills and knowledge acquired whilst in the employ of the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had failed to establish a proprietary interest that might legitimately be protected, concluding that the restraint was inimical to public policy and therefore unenforceable.

In May 1987 the owner had entered into a partiarian lease agreement with the appellant, in terms of which the latter had obtained occupation of part of the farm, and upon which he had subsequently cultivated the wheat crop. The appellant's application was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant did not have a lien over the proceeds of the sale in execution. The sale in execution took place in October 1987. The appellant bought the land himself in order to protect his rights.

In September 2006, the Respondents wanted to create a distance with the Appellant and notified him to remain formal with them. After this he met the child twice, once in October and once in November. The Appellant submits that he did maintain a distance from the Respondents after November like they wanted. On hearing that the Respondents intended to move to Australia with the child for a year, from March 2007 till around May 2018, the Appellant brought an action to restrain them from doing so.

An order in her favour was made by the Dutch court in February 1994. This order awarded her "interim maintenance payments". After the respondent failed to pursue divorce proceedings, the appellant himself commenced divorce proceedings in the Netherlands in March 1994. The appellant then returned to live in Ireland in May 1994.

The appellant (Mr Tracey) brought proceedings against the respondents in the High Court seeking damages and financial loss following the termination of a contract. The High Court judge (Kearns P) held that the relevant case did not involve defamation proceedings and that the appellant had no right to a jury trial. As a result, Kearns P ordered that the case be transferred from the jury list to the non- jury list (and so would not be heard by a jury) and ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs. The appellant was not present or represented during the High Court proceedings and at the time failed to give the court an explanation as to his absence that was satisfactory to the High Court judge (the High Court judge having previously notified the appellant that his claim might be dismissed in the event of no proper medical certificate being produced to explain his absence).

The petitioner in Hill v. McDonough is Clarence Edward Hill. In the lower courts, Hill is also the plaintiff- appellant.

United States of America ex rel. Rudy Vigil, Plaintiff Relator - Appellant, v. Nelnet, Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Citigroup, Inc.

The court concluded that the appellant could bring an appeal without the need for a certificate of the High Court.

In this case I find no > reason why the trial should be prohibited. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nor will it assist the appellant if it falls within the first class, since he was not the original covenantee.

If the first instance department decides to grant the interlocutory revision but not a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee, the first instance department has to remit "the request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee to a board of appeal".G 3/03, Reasons 3.4.3. In other words, in such a case, the first instance department "is not competent to refuse a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee."G 3/03, Order I. Instead, a Board is competent to decide on the request.

The appellant was convicted in a regional court of attempted rape. He committed the crime barely a month after being convicted of crimen iniuria, assault and malicious injury to property, for which offences he had received a suspended sentence. When he committed the attempted rape, the appellant was twenty-three years and the complainant sixteen years of age. In sentencing the appellant, the magistrate took into account the prevalence of rape in the area: > Hardly a day goes by without the local courts dealing with one or more of > these cases.

In view of the offence of rape being one of those offences which evokes public indignation, and in view of the character and personality of the appellant, as revealed by his criminal record, the magistrate added a fair measure of retribution. He obviously decided against a suspended sentence because the suspended sentence which had previously been imposed upon the appellant had not had any deterrent or corrective effect upon him. It had hardly been imposed when the appellant committed the present offence of attempted rape. The magistrate accordingly sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.

The appellant close corporation had, without notice, brought an urgent ex parte application seeking a rule nisi with interim effect against the first and second respondents. The order, referred to as an Anton Piller order by counsel, was granted by the High Court. The order provided for the removal of goods by the sheriff and the handing over of those goods to the appellant. The sheriff, together with a member of the appellant and the appellant's attorney, duly proceeded to the residence of the first and second respondents, and seized what they wanted.

The Court accepted that the Ohio divorce would not be recognised in the Irish State. Consequently, the ceremony of marriage between the appellant and the respondent that took place in 1983 was invalid. However, it was acknowledged that such a situation would allow for considerable injustice to the appellant and also the respondent's previous wife who believed she had been divorced from the respondent. In answering the question posed, however, the Supreme Court answered in the negative - the respondent could not be estopped from denying that he was married to the appellant.

The appellant's sister (the complainant) was reluctant to make a complaint until April 1998, but decided to do so eventually out of concern for her younger sister (J). The complainant "made it clear that the only reason she made a complaint in 1992, and again in 1998, was because of her concern that the [appellant] might have been abusing her younger sister." The appellant was not charged until 25 May 1999. The case was brought to the High Court in 2002, where the granting of an order preventing further prosecution of the appellant was refused.

Sanchez gave evidence that on either 8 or 10 March 2009, she had a telephone conversation with the appellant, in the course of which the appellant told her that on the night of 26 January she was disturbed or anxious about the content of the telephone call from Richard King and had driven down to Sandy Bay, looked across at the yacht, but it was in darkness, and then drove back. That was the first occasion upon which the appellant had admitted to returning to Marieville Esplanade that night.

The appellant contended that this constituted spoliation and unsuccessfully applied for restitution ante omnia, and for ejectment of the second respondent.

Parker, April 2, 1980.Levin H. Campbell, Court ruling, Digital Equipment Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc., et al.

Divorce Court File: 4301. Appellant: Enid Corinne Beaumont. Respondent: Francis William Lionel C Beaumont. Type: Wife's petition for divorce [wd] 1937\.

It was the first time they were aware that the appellant had returned to Marieville Esplanade on the night in question.

That involved the appellant, himself, feeling the breasts of two of the women and using a stethoscope beneath the bra of the third woman. Each of the three women said that they had only consented because they thought the appellant had either medical qualifications or relevant training. He had neither. There was no evidence of any sexual motive.

It therefore could be said that pro hac vice Van der Westhuizen was not an employee or servant of the appellant when he exercised his statutory discretion within the scope of his employment. In the premises, said Beckerling in closing, the appellant was vicariously liable for the damages caused by the unlawful acts of Van der Westhuizen.

In this Court, the appellant contends that the > majority in the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was > entitled to restitution of the whole of the fare. In support of this > contention, the appellant submits that there was not a total failure of > consideration arising from the fact that the contract of carriage was > entire.

In any case, the Appellant essentially argued that the frozen embryos did have a right to life despite the Defendant's objection. Appellant maintained this claim on foot of Article 40.3.3. The Court ruled against Mary and upheld the decision of the High Court. It concluded that frozen embryos were not "unborn" until they are actually implanted in a uterus.

In 1971, the appellant, Golden Cape Fruits, decided to have a new brochure printed by photolithographic process. It ordered direct from a specialist photolithographer, the respondent, certain photolithographic plates. These the appellant passed on to the printer, who printed the required number of copies. Owing, however, to an error in the plates, the copies could not be used.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence of appellant's internet use and encryption capability of his computer Appellant also argues that the victim's testimony was too vague to support the charges against him and, specifically, the victim's testimony that she refused appellant's request to take nude photos of her was insufficient to prove an attempt. Further, Appellant argues that the court improperly referred to matters outside the record, and erred by basing its finding of guilt on simulated physical conduct that was not charged in the complaint. Finally, Appellant argues that all four counts were part of the same behavioral incident and, thus, separate sentences for each count were inappropriate. Although he was found guilty on all charges, after appeal only two of the charges were dismissed as redundant charges.

The appellant followed up by stating that the two-part process is unnecessary if there is undisputed evidence that the detention is necessary.

Appellant, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, sought review of the District Court's order reversing an administrative decision against appellee retired worker.

In coming to a judgement in this case Keane CJ conducted an analysis of the more detailed facts of the appellant and respondents' circumstances in moving to the Netherlands and whether the facts of such circumstances acted to rebut the burden of proof and prove that the husband had in fact acquired a new domicile in the Netherlands. Both the appellant and respondent proposed that they "adjusted well" to living in the Netherlands. However, difficulties developed in the marriage resulting in the respondent returning to Ireland. The appellant noted that he disagreed with her decision to move back to Ireland with the children.

The appellant, on a visit to India, was approached by a man named Desai, who offered to pay him £1,000 if, on his return to England, he would receive a suitcase which a courier would deliver to him containing packages of substance which the appellant was then to distribute according to instructions he would receive. The suitcase was duly delivered to him in Cambridge. On 30 November 1982, acting on instructions, the appellant went to Southall station to deliver a package of substance to a third party. Outside the station, he and the man he had met by appointment were arrested.

Neither principle nor common sense requires this.161f-h. Having regard to the "sustained" and "vicious" assault upon the deceased by the appellant, the court found that "the appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility of his conduct causing the death of the deceased and was plainly reckless as to such result ensuing," and that he was therefore guilty of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis.Para 40. This finding rendered the question of whether or not the appellant owed a duty to the deceased of obtaining medical assistance for him (the basis for the conviction in the trial court and subsequent appeal) unnecessary.

16 (now the , s. 24). The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Minister had not treated the appellant, Dow Jones, unfairly, nor had the appellant been prejudiced in any way by the lack of opportunity to make representations. This was because the appellant had already been warned by the Minister. Furthermore, it was aware from precedent that the Minister was likely to invoke section 16 upon its refusal to publish a letter from the Monetary Authority of Singapore responding to an article, and it had been given many opportunities to publish the letter.

The appellant, Abdul Latif Mirza, was detained under the Special Powers Act, 1974 for a speech, which the government said denounced "the fundamental principles of state policy" laid out in Part II of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The detention continued for several years. The government said the appellant was detained in order to prevent any attempt to capture state power through violent means.

In this particular case, the business of the appellant was in a specialised technological field relating to the design, manufacture and/or customisation of special-purpose machines and tooling. The respondents had been employed as skilled toolmakers. They concluded a restraint of trade and confidentiality clause with the appellant. The respondents subsequently resigned and took up employment with the third respondent.

"Gerard Colby ZILG, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant vs. PRENTICE-HALL, INC., Defendant- Appellant and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellee" The suit is an important example of case law relating to the practice of privishing (private publishing) where a publishing house reduces its print run and support of a book so much that the book fails to reach the public.

Robert Laughlin Pierson (1926–1997) was an Episcopal clergyman and Freedom Rider and a named appellant in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).

The fourth book, called De Appellationibus, contains 15 articles. The volume explains how judges are nominated, the classification of sentences, appeals and appellant guarantees.

The court enjoined appellant federal officials from implementing any Indian employment preferences in the BIA. The Supreme Court of the United States granted Certiorari.

I would ask you to find in conclusion there is no evidence to show the Pakistani authorities have an adverse interest in the appellant.

When appellant refused to identify > himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a > criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an > officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.". The finding held that: > The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to > identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked > any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had > engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify > himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of > the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." While the application of the relevant Texas law was held unconstitutional in the case, the constitutional status of the law itself was not addressed.

The ruling in the case temporarily disqualified the appellant from applying for permanent residency, though he was expected to qualify again a few years later.

"Lexsee 618 F2D 972, A. A. Hoehling, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Universal City Studios, Inc., and Michael Macdonald Mooney, Defendants." An Introduction to Intellectual Property, 1980.

Appellant: Enid Corinne Beaumont. Respondent: Francis William Lionel C Beaumont. Type: Wife's petition for divorce [wd] 1937\. The National Archives, Kew whom he subsequently married.

V. Rosenstein, for the appellant, contended that there was no negligence within the meaning of sections 31(1)(a) or 31(1)(b) of the Ordinance.Rex v Verity-Amm 1934 TPD 416 at 422. JC van Niekerk, for the Crown, argued that the appellant was negligent inasmuch as he drove with knowledge of his physical weakness.McKerron on Delicts (p. 30).Rex v Meiring 1927 AD 41.

This is suggested in the following passage: > [S]omewhat surprisingly, the fourth appellant did not testify. The presence > of his vehicle and the evidence of the second appellant linked him to the > crime scene. In those circumstances, a reasonable expectation existed that, > if there were an explanation consistent with his innocence, it would have > been proffered. He, however refused to rise to the challenge.

Appellant Micah unsuccessfully attempted > to pull open the locked desk drawer. Next, appellants Micah and Hein, in a > threatening manner, shouted words demanding that McLoren turn over the key > to the locked desk drawer. Appellant Micah, when threatening McLoren and > demanding the key, shouted, “Give me the key fool” and “Give me the key, > ese. You want shit with Gumbys, ese?” McLoren refused to relinquish the key.

In unusual cases the appellant can be the victor in the court below, but still appeal. An appellee is the party to an appeal in which the lower court judgment was in its favor. The appellee is required to respond to the petition, oral arguments, and legal briefs of the appellant. In general, the appellee takes the procedural posture that the lower court's decision should be affirmed.

American Patents Development Corporation. One judge dissented: "The appellant seeks to restrain the sale of an unpatented ingredient used by it in its process. No patent could have been obtained for bituminous emulsion, a staple article of commerce, and the fact that it is used in the patented process does not entitled the appellant to a monopoly therein. Carbice."Barber Asphalt Co., 89 F.2d at 965.

The women handed over everything. The men got into the two cars and drove off. The appellant was found in possession of the firearm and ammunition three days later, but there was nothing to link that firearm to the robbery. The appellant was convicted in a regional court of three counts of robbery, possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition, and theft of a car.

During an appeal, oral proceedings may take place at the request of the EPO or at the request of any party to the proceedings, i.e. the applicant (who is, in pre-grant appeal, the appellant), or the patentee or an opponent (who are, in opposition appeal,A patentee may also be the sole appellant in an ex parte appeal proceedings following a decision of an Examining Division in limitation and revocation proceedings. Decisions of an Examining Division in such proceedings are open to appeal (OJ 2007, Special edition 4/2007, page 118, item 6, and Articles 106(1) and 21 EPC). appellant or respondent).

In an appeal from a decision of a Provincial Division, which had dismissed an appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court, D. Kuny, for the appellant, argued that the appellant, in repairing the cage, did all that could reasonably have been expected of him in the circumstances. His conduct in that regard was not in any way negligent. The second escape of the baboon was not attributable to any fault on his part. In any event, even if the appellant was negligent in the above respect, he could not reasonably have foreseen the death of the deceased as a result of such negligence.

The appellant appealed on the ground that Hogan J did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the legality of the order that was issued by the Central Criminal Court. The reason for this ground of appeal is that the High Court and Central Criminal Court are courts of equal jurisdiction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Article 4 of the 2006 Act act should not be interpreted literally. The appellant stated that the role of the courts is to look for the purpose of the legislation, which in this case is to provide lawful detention for those who need to be detained.

Richard II of England, who presided over the session The Merciless Parliament was an English parliamentary session lasting from 3 February to 4 June 1388, at which many members of King Richard II's court were convicted of treason. The session was preceded by a period in which Richard's power was revoked and the kingdom placed under the regency of the Lords Appellant. Richard had launched an abortive military attempt to overthrow the Lords Appellant and negotiate peace with the kingdom of France so he could focus all his resources against his domestic enemies. The Lords Appellant counteracted the attempt and called the Parliamentary session to expose his attempts to make peace.

A copy of the notice of appeal must be mailed or otherwise delivered to counsel for all parties, stating that the appellant will file either a written summary of the trial, or a transcript which the appellant certifies has been ordered from the court reporter. If a written summary is used instead of a transcript, the appellant must file this document with the Clerk of the Circuit Court within 55 days of the decision which is being appealed. The Clerk of the Circuit Court will then prepare a record containing all pleadings, exhibits, and orders, and will transmit that to the higher court. The appellant must also post a supersedeas bond if they wish to prevent the other party from collecting on any judgment that was awarded in the trial court; an appealing plaintiff must post an appeal bond, but only after the appeal has been granted.

The absence of prejudice to the appellant was a factor which the court a quo correctly took into account.Transvaal Properties v SA Townships 1938 T.P.D. at 521.

Friends of Mukai Win Court Appeal, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, 2014-01-03. Accessed online 2014-04-20.ISLAND LANDMARKS, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v.

Judge Buettner concurred with Judge Bell. Judge Joplin dissented. No explanation of either vote is available. The 2-1 verdict was sufficient to win for the appellant.

In 2004, Rae's conviction was overturned on appeal, which was also handled by Steele."STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lonny Duane RAE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 28229".

The court found: > Because a deputy solicitor of the 11th circuit solicitor's office > eavesdropped on a privileged conversation between appellant and his > attorney, we reverse appellant's conviction...

The appellant in this case, Vincent Sweeney, was convicted of serious drug offenses in the United Kingdom on 7 December. The court sentenced him to 16 years imprisonment. Under English Law, this imprisonment consisted of serving 8 years in custody and serving the remaining half of his sentence on release on license in the community. During his sentence, the appellant sought to serve the remainder of his time in Ireland.

De Savoye, the appellant, was the mortgagor of a property in Alberta and resided in British Columbia. The mortgage defaulted and the respondents brought action in Alberta, for the land they had mortgaged in that same province. The appellant chose not to appear or defend his actions. The respondents obtained judgment ex juris in the foreclosure action, and then obtained orders for the judicial sale of the properties.

In both cases, the court ruled against the appellant and declined to consider the specific facts surrounding the appellant's admissibility into the United States. In both cases, the appellant was ultimately deported.Howard L. Bens, “The Deportation of Aliens,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 68, no. 2 (1920), 111.Alexander Aleinikoff, “Federal Regulation of Aliens and the Constitution,” The American Journal of International Law 83, no.

C.), p. 88, para. 12. Hence, the appellant argued that since section 37(1) "unfairly discriminates against him on the basis of citizenship",Taw Cheng Kong (H.C.), p.

In 1899, Harold Armytage Thomas Sanders and Louise Augusta Sanders were granted a divorce.Editor. (1899). Divorce Court File: 560. Appellant: Harold Armytage Thomas Sanders. Respondent: Louise Augusta Sanders.

In addition, Taw (the appellant) argued, first, that section 37(1) of the PCA was unconstitutional, and, secondly, that its enactment was ultra vires the legislative power of Parliament.

"UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James MARTORANO, Defendant- Appellant", United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 610 F.2d 36, Argued March 15, 1979. Decided Dec. 6, 1979.

The control tower of London Heathrow Airport in October 2007. A 1980 House of Lords case involved an appellant who had been detained by immigration authorities for gaining entry into the United Kingdom at the airport by deception. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged his detention, the court holding that the authorities' decision did not involve any precedent fact. Courts in the United Kingdom have stated that the precedent fact doctrine is not applicable to all statutes.

The Appellant, a 53 years of age, of Russian nationality, arrived in Ireland on the 18th of October 1999 and applied for refugee status with the first named respondent. In his submission the Appellant stated that, he has "no religion" but ethnically he is considered Jewish because his mother is Jewish. He was attacked by the Chechen paramilitaries. Afterwards he was kidnapped by the Chechen and was held captive for a year.

In its judgment on sentence, the trial court had not mentioned the appellant's personal circumstances, and had dealt only with the seriousness of the offences. The magistrate seemed to the High Court not to have appreciated the difference between the offences of which the appellant had been convicted, and the offences of murder and attempted murder. These amounted to misdirections that entitled the High Court to interfere with sentence. The appellant had a clean record.

Van der Westhuizen's conduct had nothing to do with police work; it was a private action. If, for instance, Van der Westhuizen had personally broken into the CNA and stolen goods, the CNA would not have been able to hold the appellant liable for the damages. Why then, Wessels demanded, should the appellant be held liable for the assault and arrest?See Scott Middellike Aanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg at 197.

The appellant must be given the opportunity to rebut claims and evidence and to produce their own evidence. Finally, the appellant has the right to receive written reasons for a decision of the Minister. In this case, the court ruled that the requirements of procedural fairness had been met. This result differs from the Suresh case, where the Court ruled that procedural fairness requirements had not been met, and ordered a new hearing.

In S v Marx, an important case in South African criminal law, the relationship of the appellant and his wife had deteriorated markedly during the course of their nineteen-year marriage. She had become verbally abusive and aggressive towards him, and she had humiliated him in public. On the evening in question, she had taunted and abused him. This, coupled with other factors, acted as a trigger for the appellant to shoot her.

There was a right of appeal to the Governor from a decision of the court. An appeal had to be lodged with the governor within eight days of the decision of the court. The Governor sat on appeal with the Judge Advocate as an advisor. If the appellant was unsuccessful before the Governor and the amount involved exceeded £300 sterling, the unsuccessful appellant might go further by appealing to the British Privy Council.

The Turf club (Respondent) was the Irish regulatory body for horse racing until the end of 2017. It established and enforced the rules of flat racing in Ireland. O’Connell (Appellant) was a professional jockey, and his co-appellant (Lambe) was a horse trainer. The Turf Club alleged that O’Connell failed to ride a horse called "Yachvilli" to its maximum ability in Downpatrick (Co Down) in 2011 which was contrary to the Rules of Racing.

The appellant contended that "any law in Singapore which seeks to have extraterritorial effect is, by that virtue of that alone, unconstitutional".Taw Cheng Kong (H.C.), p. 107, para. 76.

"Brief of Appellant." 25 August 2008. Accessed 6 March 2013. During the course of the search, Olofson spoke with law enforcement officers and acknowledged lending the AR-15 to Kiernicki.

However, in the period between the decision allowing the appeal and the hearing itself, the appellant was granted refugee status. The State then contended that the appeal was moot (pointless).

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July > Term, A.D. 2010 Florida Department of Children and Families, Appellant, vs. > In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Appellees.

Judge Wikeley, 'The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Upper Tribnal Case No. GIA/2069/2018; Parties: United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd (Appellant) and The Information Commissioner (First Respondent)' (18 February 2019).

Mr. Josephson: Yes. The appellant was then > excused subject to call either by the sub-committee or the full committee. As a result, Josephson was found guilty of contempt of Congress.

The appellant must accept responsibility for her actions in this regard and her decision not to offer a response does not diminish the suitableness of the questionnaire to assess the candidates.

On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 pm, appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head, breaking his jaw. A Metropolitan Police Department officer arrived at the scene. In response to the officer's direction, appellant's companion ceased any further efforts to obtain identification information of the assailants. When the officer then failed to get the information, leaving Nichol unable to institute legal action against his assailants, Nichol brought a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia.

Appeals from the GDC for civil matters in excess of $50, and for all criminal and traffic cases, go to the Virginia Circuit Court, where they are re-tried de novo (because the GDC does not generate a record to be reviewed for error). The appellant in the Circuit Court will then be entitled to a jury trial, even if they were not entitled to one in the GDC. If the case is a criminal case or traffic infraction, the appellant will automatically receive a jury trial in the Circuit Court unless they affirmatively waive this right. For civil cases on appeal, the appellant must request a jury; if no such request is made, then the appeal will be heard by a Circuit Court judge alone.

This would mean the appellant would serve a > sentence longer than what he was sentenced to in England. Murray J decided > due to these reasons that the appellant is only required to serve 8 years > imprisonment." The administrating state should be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence imposed in the sentencing state. The sentence must be of continued enforcement by the administrating state and the court states that the warrant issued to transfer the appellant should be consistent with the sentence given by the Crown court following his conviction: > "Under subsection (5) to (7), a warrant shall be used to allow for a > continued enforcement in the administrating state of a sentence ordered by > the sentencing state including ant period of remission.

See Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 471. The appellant, as a reasonable and prudent person, must have foreseen the possibility that an attack by the baboon could have fatal results.See S v Bernardus 1965 (3) SA 302. The State contended that the court should ascertain whether there had been, on the part of the appellant, an omission to do something which he ought under the circumstances to have done, which would have prevented the occurrence.

The magistrate took into account the circumstances which prevailed when the appellant committed the offence, addressing the appellant thus: > You had the complainant at your mercy, pulled her around by the hair, > assaulted her, humiliated her and attempted to rape her. You are a big > strong person and she had no chance against you. Fortunately you did not > succeed in deflowering her. Had that happened the court would have taken a > much more serious view of this incident.

The appellant was being charged with rape. He sought leave for judicial review based on an alleged failure by the Gardaí (police) to seek out and make available witness statements concerning the previous sexual history of the complainant on the basis of statements made by witnesses for the prosecution. The High Court refused to grant leave for judicial review. The appellant then sought leave to have a trial in which he was the defendant prohibited (prevented from proceeding).

The Minister's letter had confined itself to stating that he was satisfied that the provisions of section 5 (prohibition of refoulement) of the Refugee Act 1996 had been complied with. Without communicating further with the appellant or her legal representatives, the Minister made a formal deportation order. The appellant sought judicial review of the deportation decision in the High Court. In order to be granted judicial review of the decision, “substantial grounds” would have to be established.

During his brief and unstable marriage, the appellant, Gordon Patterson, Jr., became estranged from his wife, Roberta. Roberta resumed an association with John Northrup, a neighbor to whom she had been engaged prior to her marriage to appellant. On December 27, 1970, Patterson borrowed a rifle from an acquaintance and went to the residence of his father-in-law. There, he observed his wife through a window in a state of semiundress in the presence of John Northrup.

Kress is married to Lyudmila Kress and has two children, His daughter Elena is a cardiologist and his son Vyacheslav is judge at the Seventh appellant arbriage court. He has four grandchildren.

For the other cases it is one month after the service / notification. The appellant can be a legal person, as far as the above-mentioned rights "fit" (Art. 19 Sec. 3 GG).

However, this was three times the limit allowed by the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), and the application was denied."October 18, 1928 letter from Louis G. Calwell", General Electric Company, Appellant vs.

GITA LANDEROS, Appellant, a minor, sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which sustained general demurrers and dismissed her medical malpractice action against appellees, a physician and a hospital, for injuries sustained when they failed to properly diagnose and treat the condition from which she was suffering. Appellant minor argued trial court error in sustaining the demurrer of appellees, doctor and hospital, to her malpractice suit against them, because issues existed as to whether they had a duty to recognize a case of battered child syndrome that was to be reported to authorities, and whether their conduct proximately caused appellant's injuries. The court agreed, noting first that appellant was returned to parental custody after having been treated for injuries not appearing to be accidental, and that she then was traumatically abused. Because it was unclear whether treating physicians should have recognized the syndrome for treatment purposes, appellant was entitled to prove by expert testimony the standard of care against which appellees were to be held.

Jared Scott Fogle"NO.15-3770 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARED S. FOGLE, Defendant-Appellant." p. 2 (PDF p. 7/42).

NC Addleson, for the respondent, argued that, on the affidavits, the undisputed facts were such as to justify a final interdict. It was not disputed that the respondent had the contractual rights of a lessee and that the appellant had entered the premises on five occasions in such a manner that the respondent's attorney had once to be called before he left. The appellant was claiming an unrestricted right of entry which is in breach of the respondent's right to commodus usus.

Ultimately the Supreme Court concluded: > The conflict between the assertions made by the appellant and those made by > orthodox Holocaust historians cannot be resolved through reasoned debate. > Orthodox historians point to sources which support their theories; the > appellant and other "revisionist" historians point to documents which do not > exist or which do not say what they claim they do. The pamphlet Did Six > Million Really Die? does not fit with received views of reality because it > is not part of reality.

The Ohio American Independent Party (an appellant in No. 543), was formed in January 1968, and during the next six months by securing over 450,000 signatures exceeded the 15% requirement but was denied ballot position because the February deadline had expired. The Socialist Labor Party (an appellant in No. 544), an old party with a small membership, could not meet the 15% requirement. Both Parties brought actions challenging the Ohio election laws as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

231-2, "Colleges: Cobham" priests. He married Margaret Courtenay (died 1385), a daughter of Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd/10th Earl of Devon (1303–1377) of Tiverton Castle in Devon. In 1388 he was one of the Lords Appellant who impeached various of the favourites of King Richard II, including de la Pole and de Vere. In 1397/8 he himself was impeached for his role as a Lord Appellant and was sentenced to death but pardoned on condition of his exile to Jersey.

The appellant and three others – all serving members of the United States Airforce – became involved in a disturbance at a café in Hull, with the appellant stabbing a man, Beaumont, then admitted to hospital.(1956) 40 Cr App R 152, at 153 The defence team conceded their client stabbed Beaumont; they then uncovered medical evidence not available at trial and appealed on the grounds that the medical treatment the victim had received was so negligent as to break the appellant's liability.

The appellant was a building contractor who had entered into an agreement with the first respondent (represented by the second respondent) to perform certain construction work on the first respondent's property. He was placed in possession of a full set of keys to the premises upon commencement of the work and subsequently delivered duplicates of certain of the keys to the second respondent for the limited purpose of facilitating inspection of the premises by the respondent. When a dispute arose between the parties, the respondent engaged other contractors to complete the work and, using the duplicate keys delivered to him by the appellant, provided the new contractors with access to the premises. When the appellant thereafter arrived at the premises, he was refused access, apparently on the respondent's instructions.

On 16 December 2008 the appellant was transferred into Irish custody on a warrant issued by the High Court on the application of the Minister. This warrant stated that the plaintiff was the subject of a sentence of imprisonment of 16 years, with the respondent taking the Irish position that the plaintiff was entitled to be released, with remission, after 12 years in custody. In 2014, before the High Court, the appellant sought to have a declaration that the warrant issued was ultra vires the provisions of the Act of 1995 and the principles contained in the Convention, and be released from custody immediately. The High Court refused the declaration and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing the correct sentence of imprisonment was of 8 years.

The appellant submits that the judgment of the trial court failed to address the import of the provision in section 2 of Act 690 that copyright does not extend to ideas, and that the Court of Appeal erred in not setting aside the judgment on that ground. The plot of a novel, such as Woes, was an idea that had no copyright protection under Act 690. Therefore, the Summary could not constitute copyright infringement especially when it was neither alleged nor established that the Summary had plagiarized the plaintiff's linguistic style or presentation. The appellant argues that the Summary, published purposely for education, did not infringe the plaintiff's copyright in Woes.Appellant’s statement of case The appellant goes on to cite in support of his argument, ideas versus expression.

The appellant in Van Aardt v S,[2009] 2 All SA 184 (SCA). an important case in South African criminal law, had been convicted in the Grahamstown High Court of the murder of a fifteen-year-old youth, following a savage beating administered by the appellant, who suspected the deceased of theft. An appeal to the full bench of the Eastern Cape High Court was unsuccessful, so the matter came on further appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant admitted common assault, but denied that such assault had caused the death of the deceased, or that he bore a legal duty to seek medical intervention for the deceased.Para 4. Having examined the evidence, and having concluded that the appellant's acts caused the deceased's death,Para 35.

Sage never paid any settlement and was publicly criticized as a miser because of his great fortune. New York Court of Appeals, William R. Laidlaw, Respondent, v. Russell Sage, Appellant, 158 N.Y. 73, Jan.

Tarnopol was ultimately cleared by an appellate court in 1977. United States of America v. Nat Tarnopol, Appellant, Peter Garris, Irving Wiegan, Leeshep, Carl Davis, Melvin Moore and Carmine De Noia.appeal of Peter Garris.

Under the New Brunswick Assessment Act, 1965–66, c. 110, as amended by 1967, c. 25, and 1968, c. 15, the power plant of the appellant company was assessed for tax for the year 1968.

Applying those legal principles, the Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that her detention had been made for reasons unrelated to national security.Teo Soh Lung (C.A.), pp. 366–367, paras. 41–43.

The animal snatched a baby, one Elpitha Piccoco, from a perambulator, bit it and then, apparently intimidated by revolver shots fired by the appellant, threw the child to the ground and retreated into its cage.

The appellant appealed against the sentence on the grounds: # that no reference had been made in the charge-sheet to the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and # that the sentence was startlingly inappropriate.

Thornley v. United States, 113 U.S. 310 (1885), was a lawsuit brought against the United States to recover the balance due on pay to the appellant who had been an officer of the U.S. Navy..

The appellant has no right to bail but may be granted bail by the magistrates' court or, if the magistrates' court refuses, a judge of the High Court.Criminal Justice Act 1948, s. 37 (1) (b).

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which accepted certiorari. Jesse Climenko served as attorney for the appellant. Charles J. Margiotti of Pittsburgh and Lee Pressman of Washington, DC, served as attorneys for the appellees.

Plainer language than that which appellant had chosen would have been necessary to exclude effectively such a warranty.Para 43. The decision in the Cape Provincial Division, in Arnold v Van der Westhuizen, was thus confirmed.

The President of Singapore is treated as the appellant and all other parties as respondents.RC, O. 58 r. 8(3). However, the Tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence.RC, O. 58 r. 9.

In S v Fernandez,1966 (2) SA 259 (A). the court held that the appellant had been negligent in mending a cage from which a vicious baboon had subsequently escaped, which subsequently bit a child, who subsequently died. The appellant must have foreseen the likelihood of an attack in the event of the baboon's escaping; he was, the court held, rightly convicted of culpable homicide for failing take steps to prevent this: that is to say, for failing to keep the cage door in good repair.

The appellant was negligent in that he did not satisfy himself that the cage was in a satisfactory condition. The very fact that the baboon succeeded in escaping from the cage went to show that the cage was inadequate for the purpose it was intended to serve. Alternatively, the State argued, the cage became inadequate subsequently, and the appellant was negligent in not satisfying himself from time to time that the cage remained in a good and serviceable condition.See Coreejes v Carnarvon Munisipaliteit en 'n Ander 457.

The appellant sailed for India on October 11, 1926; his estate was provisionally sequestrated on October 13, 1926. In March 1929, after his return, he was convicted of contravening section 142(a) of the Insolvency Act,Act 32 of 1916. in that he had failed to attend the first meeting of his creditors, held on November 11, 1926. The magistrate, in his reasons, stated that he was satisfied, on the facts set out above, that it was physically impossible for appellant to attend the meeting.

'Parishes: Holt', in A History of the County of Worcester: Volume 3 (London, 1913), pp. 401-408 Beauchamp's rapid rise from esquire to baron could not be borne by the Lords Appellant, who included his kinsman, Thomas Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick. The latter probably saw the rise of his cousin as a threat to his dominance of the Midlands.Saul 179 Arrested and imprisoned along with three other household knights, Lord BeauchampAlthough the Lords Appellant disregarded his peerage and addressed him simply as a knight (Ross 564).

Darkan v R (2006) HCA 34 is a High Court of Australia case concerning the meaning of "probable consequence" as used in ss8 and 9 of the Criminal Code of Queensland. The three appellants were tried and convicted of the murder of Kalman John Toth, the second appellant's de facto husband. A dispute arose between the second appellant and the deceased. The second appellant recruited three men to do him harm: the other two appellants and Bowen, who appeared as a witness for the prosecution.

Many jurisdictions recognize two types of appeals, particularly in the criminal context. The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance—usually the court that tried the case. The key distinguishing factor between direct and collateral appeals is that the former occurs in state courts, and the latter in federal courts.

Pursuant to a default judgment against Markom, the first respondent, his residential property was sold in execution to Menqa, the first appellant (who subsequently sold it to the second appellant). The warrant of execution had been issued by the clerk of the magistrates' court without judicial supervision, but prior to the ruling in Jaftha v Schoeman; Van Rooyen v Stoltz,2005 (2) SA 140 (CC). wherein the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the relevant provision in the Magistrates' Courts ActAct 32 of 1944.s 66(1)(a).

The appellant (original plaintiff) was Mummagraphics, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation with its only place of operation in Oklahoma City. It provided web based services and hosted websites devoted to opposing spam messages. These websites included sueaspammer.

Latini > lymphaticos appellant (p. 107, Teubner 1997 edition of Lindsay). Because the states of madness, possession, and illness were not always strictly distinguished in antiquity, "nympholepsy" became a morbid or undesirable condition.Larson, Greek Nymphs, p. 62.

Her failure to prevent the opposing counsel from interrupting the appellant was supposedly reflective of a biased state of mind.Chee Siok Chin, p. 546, para. 6. Justice Ang adopted the view in Locabail (UK) Ltd. v.

In January 2008, after appellant's unit returned to their home station in Schweinfurt, Germany, one of the soldiers reported the murders. On 18 January 2008, appellant's battalion commander gave appellant an order to have no contact with the other soldiers in his company until the investigation was complete. The commander also ordered appellant to remain under the supervision of his command sergeant major (CSM, the most senior ranking NCO of battalion and higher units) until he was interviewed by Army criminal investigators the following day and to remain on the installation. Appellant continued his preparations for reassignment, cleared his family quarters, and placed his household goods in shipment. However, in February 2008 his orders were revoked and he was assigned to live in bachelor quarters at a soon-to-close installation in Würzburg, Germany, approximately a 30-minute drive from Schweinfurt.

It was filed as a class action in 1994.Rivera v. Bane on NYLAG website Following trial, the court ordered the City to make public assistance files available before fair hearings when timely requested by an appellant.

Respondent: Thomas William G Carleton. Type: Wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights; Reference: J 77/1479/5666 and in 1920 she petitioned for divorce.Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, File 1396. Appellant: Daisy Isobel Eaglesfield Carleton.

Allen was a general practitioner who represented a wide range of clients from a Black Muslim prisoner357 F.2d 105 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Appellee, v. Fred WALLACE, Appellant. No. 9462. United States Courts of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v.

Hollingsworth is affiliated with the conservative group ProtectMarriage.com and has been instrumental in their legal battle to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage in California. As such, he is the named appellant in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Kilburn Appellant v Estate Kilburn Respondent,1931 AD 501. an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Appellate DivisionWessels ACJ, Stratford JA, Roos JA and Hutton AJA. on 15 and 29 September, 1931.

The Appellate Division found that at all material times the baboon was in the custody and control of the appellant. It was, accordingly, the appellant's duty to see that the animal was not permitted to remain outside its cage. The court held further that the appellant had taken no steps whatsoever to see that the animal did not get out of its cage while he was engaged in repairing it. He must have foreseen the likelihood of the animal making an attack upon somebody should it get out of the cage.

Finnegan J. in the High Court, considered all the grounds put forth by the Appellant. However, he was not satisfied with all the grounds brought forth by the Appellant aside, (set sub-paragraph(j)). With regards to sub-paragraph (j), Finnegan J. judged that, there was "no universal requirement or general entitlement to an oral hearing of an appeal". Although there is little to suggest that the dictum of Brennan J. had any lasting impact on the High Court, However, influenced by the findings of the US Supreme Court in Golberg v.

Grossberg affirmed and upheld the Registrar's decision, holding that the impugned Section of the Indian Act did not discriminate against the appellant on the basis of sex. Judge Grossberg noted that the Indian Act treated all married women equally, Indian or not: ::The appellant entered into a voluntary marriage which gave her the status and all the rights enjoyed by all other Canadian married females. Her marriage also imposed on her the same obligations imposed on all other Canadian married females ...RE Lavell v. Attorney General of Canada, at 186.

TW Beckerling, for the respondent, said that the only issue to be decided was whether or not the appellant was vicariously responsible and liable for the damages sustained by the respondent in consequence of Van der Westhuizen's conduct.See Rabie v Minister of Police and Another 1984 (1) SA at 789D. The basis for the respondent's claim against the appellant arose from the provisions of section 1 of the State Liabilities Act. It was common cause that Van der Westhuizen had committed a wrong by unlawfully arresting the respondent and causing the latter's detention and prosecution.

In that case the materiality requirement as a criterion for culpability is then justified. In the case of Omoregie v D.P.P,Suit No. F.S.C. 260/1961; (1962) 2 N.S.C.C. 107 at 110, cited by Deji Sasegbon, Sasegbon’s Laws of Nigeria (1st edition) An Encyclopedia of Nigerian Law and Practice 7 (Pt. III) Criminal Law & Practice, p. 1297. three assignments were made against the accused (appellant) in a civil case and, the question arose as to whether those assignments were material to main issue in dispute, and whether the appellant made the false statements knowingly.

The appellant had been convicted of a contravention of Volksraad Besluit No. 104 of 25 September 1871, in that he had allowed coloured persons, other than those exempted by the Besluit, to occupy an erf in the village of belonging to the appellant, and had been fined £1. This decision was appealed on the grounds # that a breach of the provisions of the Besluit was not a crime; and # that the Besluit, in so far as it referred to coloured persons, had been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation.

Maria Barbella at her second trial attended by "Tombs Angel" Rebecca Salome Foster Many complained to Governor Levi Morton about how the situation was handled, but it seemed nothing could be done. She was granted an appeal on the basis of the judge's jury instructions, which explicitly argued in favor of conviction.Barbella, Maria, Appellant. "The People of the State of New York, Respondent, V. Marie Barberi, Appellant." Court of Appeals of New York 149 N.Y. 256; 43 N.E. 635 (1896) On November 16, 1896, she was given a second trial.

Smith v Jones is a 1999 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and was decided on appeal from the court of appeal for British Columbia."Smith v. Jones": Supreme Court Judgments, 1999-03-25 - [1999] 1 SCR 455 The Appellant sought to keep secret the professional opinion of the Respondent, a psychologist, whom the former had retained as part of his trial for aggravated assault of a prostitute. The Respondent had sought to publish his opinion of the Appellant's psychology, because he felt that the Appellant posed a danger to society.

A package containing a powdered substance was found in the appellant's shoulder bag. At the appellant's flat in Cambridge, he produced to customs officers the suitcase from which the lining had been ripped out and the remaining packages of the same powdered substance. In answer to questions by customs officers and in a long written statement the appellant made what amounted to a full confession of having played his part, as described, as recipient and distributor of illegally imported drugs. The appellant believed the drugs to be either heroin or cannabis.

For an indefinite period requests for reconsideration orders will be considered initially by Immigration judges of the AIT ("the filter"); should the request be refused a party can opt into the High Court or Court of Session. Either of the parties (the Home Secretary or the Appellant) can apply for reconsideration, within strict time limits (for example, 5 days from receipt of the decision if the Appellant is in the UK). Such an application must be made in writing. A Senior Immigration Judge considers whether or not the grounds for reconsideration are "arguable".

Also it was mentioned that in circumstances where the first named Respondent died, the Appellant could still be in contact with the child and his opinion would be taken in matters concerning the best guardianship arrangements for the child. After the child was born in May 2006, Appellant became increasingly attached to his biological child. He attempted to provide financial assistance with the child's day to day expenses and in others way which was declined by the Respondents. In addition, he lodged money monthly to a trust account that he opened for his child.

Mr. Dolny (the appellant) appealed on two grounds: Firstly, he argued that there were insufficient particulars stated on the European arrest warrant. Secondly, he disputed that there was a corresponding offense under Irish law, similar to the details of his own offense, he said, did not match s.3(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, the Irish statute under which he had been charged. Micheál P. O'Higgins, S.C., counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned High Court judge had erred in holding that the offenses of assault in s.

That meant that, given that the first appellant's duty was to take care that the premises were safe, it was obliged to take no more than reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable harm to the public.Paras 46, 48 at 285G - H, 286B respectively. The court found that, by engaging a competent contractor, the first appellant took the care which was incumbent on it to make the premises reasonably safe. There was no way for the first appellant to have known that the second appellant's work would be defective.

Since Part IV contains Article 73(a) – the extraterritoriality clause – the appellant argued that its exclusion meant that Singapore's Parliament was not empowered to make any law which had extraterritorial effect.Taw Cheng Kong (H.C.), p. 109, para. 81.

Edwin MEESE, III, United States Attorney General, and Michael Landon, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendants-Appellants, Walter Polovchak, Intervening-Appellant. Nos. 85-2297, 85-2305. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued Sept.

In view of the findings made regarding the competency of the attorney who conducted his defence at the trial, the interests of justice required that another legal representative be appointed to represent the appellant at the further trial.

She and Manson lived together as husband and wife and Reid alleged she had given birth to Manson's child in 1898.England & Wales, Civil Divorce Records, 1858-1918 - 1911: Reid - Ancestry.com Divorce Court File: 1207. Appellant: William Lewis Reid.

Register of Marriages for the Maidenhead registration district, Volume 2c, p. 873, Alexandra Elizabeth C. Swift and Victor Herbert Miller In 1907, she petitioned for divorce,Divorce Court File 7363. Appellant: Alexandra Elizabeth Carlisle Miller. Respondent: Victor Herbert Miller.

United States Patent And Trademark Office. Board Of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, Requester And Appellant V. Patent Of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Patent Owner And Respondent. Appeal 2012-011693, Reexamination Control 95/000,154.

The appellant had been searched by two Police Officers and swore at them. Neither officer said they were harassed, alarmed or distressed by the words and could not show how any member of the public was affected. Appeal held.

Goldstone AJA found on the appeal, "in all the circumstances," that "the learned trial Judge correctly held the appellant liable to compensate the respondent for the damages sustained by her."14G-H. The cross-appeal was also upheld.16B.

The Court heard oral arguments for the case on October 13th, 1976. Assistant Attorney General A. Seth Greenwald argued the case for the appellant, the State of New York. Attorneys H. Miles Jaffe and Michael Lesch argued for the appellees.

ClariNet was a plaintiff/appellant in the United States Supreme Court case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. ClariNet's CEO testified that the Communications Decency Act created a chilling effect for online publishers.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Civ.

In Frumer v Maitland,1954 (3) SA 840 (A). Schreiner JA noted that, "The appellant was entitled to delivery of the house in a state not materially different from that in which it was at the date of the contract."846.

Jose TORMOS-VEGA, Defendant, Appellant. et. al. (Nos. 88-2235, 89-1253 and 89-2022.) 21 January 1992; Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc; [Appeal] Denied 18 March 1992. Accessed 28 March 2017. Tormos Vega died in jail a few years later.

On July 26, 2005, the state, along with crisis pregnancy centers that had intervened in the case, appealed the district court's preliminary injunction to the Eighth Circuit.Brief of Appellant, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, No. 05-3093 (8th Cir. September 2005).

Children's Hospital, which had been the basis for striking down a New York minimum wage law in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo in the late spring of 1936. In Tipaldo, the appellant had not challenged the Adkins precedent.

He was asked to vacate the offices of the company and the chairman asked him to resign as a director. Cropper refused to resign as a director, but did so later, and his resignation was accepted. In an action commenced by Peso, a declaration was claimed that the interests in the companies developing the Dickson claims acquired by the respondent were held by him in trust for the appellant, and it was asked that he be required to deliver the shares to the appellant or to account for the proceeds thereof. Cropper counter-claimed for damages for wrongful dismissal.

When Richard II summoned the High Court judges in August 1387 to give their opinion on the lawfulness of the actions of the powerful commission of nobles known as the Lords Appellant, Skipwith pleaded illness as an excuse for non- attendance.Kingsford p. 357 As a result, he avoided participating in the judgment against the Lords Appellant, condemning them for treason and authorising their arrest, which the judges later claimed they had been coerced into giving. His decision not to attend was a wise one, since when the judges were impeached by the Merciless Parliament in 1388, Skipwith escaped censure.

Denning gave the leading judgment in D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] 2 QB 617 in 1965. D & C Builders Ltd (the respondent) had been hired by Rees (the appellant) to do some construction work at his shop, where he sold building materials. The respondent finished the work and repeatedly phoned the appellant to request the money they were owed. After three phone calls spread out over several months the appellant's wife spoke to the respondents; she said there were several problems with the work that they had done, and she would only pay £300 of the £482 owed.

Since Robert was hugely unpopular with the other nobles and magnates, his close relationship with King Richard was one of the catalysts for the emergence of an organised opposition to Richard's rule in the form of the Lords Appellant. In 1387, Ireland led Richard's forces to defeat at Radcot Bridge outside Oxford, against the forces of the Lords Appellant. He fled the field and his forces were left leaderless and compelled into ignominious surrender. He was attainted and sentenced to death in absentia by the Merciless Parliament of 1388, which also made him forfeit his titles and lands.

The appellant brought a motion in 2007 to certify a class action on behalf of all land surveyors in Ontario who registered or deposited plans of survey in the provincial land registry offices. It claimed that the respondent, who as agent of the Crown, trespassed on the copyright of the land surveyors who had generated the work. The appellant failed to convince the trial judge, failed to sway the Court of Appeal, and failed to persuade the SCC of the rightness of its cause. The judges were very concerned about the public interest, and the clear public character of the works.

The court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury that the appellant would have been justified in shooting the deceased if he justifiably feared that he was about to suffer grievous bodily harm at his hands. The failure so to direct the jury was an irregularity which had prejudiced the appellant, because it appeared that the jury might have found that, even though he did not fear for his life, he most certainly feared very serious bodily harm when he was assaulted by the deceased. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside.

An appellant may request a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeals to review a petition for appeal that was denied, either in whole, or part, by the judge who initially reviewed the petition. As long as oral argument was preserved in the petition for appeal and a reply brief was not filed, the appellant may present oral argument on the petition for appeal before a panel of three judges. Any one of the three judges may grant the petition on the basis of the record without oral argument. If the petition is granted, briefs are filed by both parties.

Inspector Barbarick testified that he had been contacted by Informant Khoury prior to August 17, 1972, on five to ten occasions and that Khoury had related information concerning appellant Watson and his associates and that the information supplied helped in knowing the whereabouts of people that were involved in mail theft throughout the Los Angeles area. There is sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that Khoury was 'reliable'. Consequently, on August 17, 1972, when Khoury gave Barbarick the credit card which he said he had received from Watson, probable cause existed to arrest appellant Watson for mail theft.

Since it was the duty of the applicant to ensure that the order applied for did not go beyond that which was permitted, and since the Court had granted a rule nisi which it had not been empowered to grant, the setting aside of the rule had to follow as a matter of course.Para 3. The appellant had alleged that it held copyright in documents, but these documents had neither been identified nor produced. Whether the appellant was the author of the relevant documents, and the originality of the alleged works, was further not proved to the satisfaction of the Court.

In law, a (Latin: "change for the worse") occurs when, as the result of an appeal, the appellant is put in a worse position than if they had not appealed. For example, an appellant in a criminal case might receive a more severe sentence on appeal than in their original trial. Whether or not reformationes in peius are allowed depends on the jurisdiction and the applicable procedural law. In civil law jurisdictions, reformationes in peius are generally not allowed in appeals in administrative law cases, as well as in criminal and civil appeals as long as only one party appeals the decision.

The Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the General District Court for civil matters in excess of $50, and for all criminal and traffic cases. Cases thus appealed are re-tried de novo (because the GDC does not generate a record to be reviewed for error). The appellant in the Circuit Court will then be entitled to a jury trial, even if they were not entitled to one in the GDC. If the case is a criminal case or traffic infraction, the appellant will automatically receive a jury trial in the Circuit Court unless they affirmatively waive this right.

Falefou v. Esau was an appeal from a judgment of Donne CJ given in the High Court on 27 August 1991. Donne CJ dismissed an appeal from the Lands Appeal Panel which rejected that the appellant, who had been adopted according to native custom, was entitled to the transfer of all the lands and pits held by the person (who died intestate), who had adopted the appellant. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal; deciding that “The Tuvalu Land Code is a code for disposing of an intestate’s land. In the Court’s view distributions are to be made in accordance with the Code.

Van Schalkwyk J held that the appellant, Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd, was negligent in relation to the erection of the wooden beam and he ordered it to pay damages to the respondent in the amount of R181 408,45 and the costs of suit. The appellant appealed to the Appellate Division, in Langley Fox Building Partnership v De Valence,1991 (1) SA 1 (A). against the finding that it was liable to compensate the respondent for any loss sustained by her. In turn, the respondent cross-appealed, claiming that she should have been awarded damages in the amount of R593 070.

The appellant in the case, Ms Meadows, was a Nigerian national who had sought refugee status. According to the appellant, she faced threats to her life in Nigeria and also feared being forced into an arranged marriage and being subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) against her will. Ms Meadows was unsuccessful in her claim of refugee status and subsequently the Refugee Appeals Tribunal found that Ms Meadows was not a refugee within the meaning of section 2 the Refugee Act 1996 as amended, affirming the prior decision.Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] 2 IR 701 (SC) 761. While the Tribunal accepted that FGM constituted torture, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not “established a credible connection between her circumstances, on the one hand, and forced marriage and FGM on the other”.Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] 2 IR 701 (SC) 712.

41, entitled "An act for the relief of Medical Director John Thornley, United States navy," the appellant, directed that he be considered as having been retired from active service as a surgeon and placed on the retired list of officers of the navy, June 1, 1861, on account of physical incapacity originating in the line of duty, and that he be paid accordingly. These sections have been reproduced in the Revised Statutes, and read as follows, respectively: The Act also provided that no officer on the retired list of the navy should be employed on active duty except in time of war. The contention of the appellant is that upon these enactments he is entitled to what is known as "longevity pay." The contention of the United States is that longevity pay is only given to officers on the active list of the navy, and not to retired officers, to which latter class the appellant belongs.

Despite similarities to a previous appeal where the appellant died of a heart attack, Judge Gartzke ruled that by choosing to commit suicide, Judge McDonald chose to forfeit his appeal and thus was not entitled to a posthumous review of his conviction.

His paternal grandparents were James Donaldson (died 1754), a textile manufacturer, and Treasurer of Edinburgh; and Elizabeth Weir (died 1768). He had an uncle, John Donaldson, a London bookseller and partner of his father who was also an appellant in Donaldson v Beckett.

C.), p. 108, para. 78. The appellant further highlighted that section 6 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act ("RSIA"), ("RSIA"). which was enacted shortly after Singapore's independence from Malaysia, provides that Part IV of the Constitution of Malaysia ceased to have effect in Singapore.

Written judgments were provided by O'Donnell J, Laffoy J, MacMenamin J. The majority - O'Donnell J, Laffoy J (O'Malley J concurring) - found in favour of Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd (as the appellant) and allowed the appeal. MacMenamin J (McKechnie J concurring) delivered the dissenting judgment.

The respondents sought to have the appeal struck out on the basis that the appellant had not obtained a certificate of leave to appeal from the High Court - this certificate was, according to the respondents, required under s5(3)(a) Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000.

Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein.

Anna Frances Eilers (now Anna Anderson), Appellant, v. George F. Eilers, Appellee, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 412 S.W.2d 871: 1967 Ky, March 17, 1967. See the "Eilers v. Eilers" entry in the Notable Kentucky African Americans Database, University of Kentucky Libraries, Lexington, Kentucky.

Jason > attempted to pull McLoren off of Micah. McLoren kicked Jason in the face. > McLoren then heard appellant Jason say, “Let’s get this fucker.” While being > held in a headlock, McLoren twice felt sharp, debilitating, pulsating > sensations, which later proved to be multiple stab wounds.

In 1885 he and his brother began a practice in Dallas. In 1894 he was, alongside Texas Attorney General Charles Allen Culberson, an appellant in two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co. and Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

In Prince v. President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (2002),. the appellant challenged, among other things, the constitutionality of the South African Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 1992Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 1992 (No. 140 of 1992) (South Africa).

The Court further held that Callan had not been subjected to unequal treatment or discrimination based on the difference in remission entitlements. Hanna J rejected all of the various constitutional arguments brought forward by the appellant counsel and found in favour of the defendants.

In S v Fernandez,1966 (2) SA 259 (A). an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 17, 1966, the court held that the appellant had been negligent in mending a cage from which a baboon had subsequently escaped, which subsequently bit a child, who subsequently died. The appellant must have foreseen the likelihood of an attack in the event of the baboon's escaping; he was, the court held, therefore rightly convicted of culpable homicide. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Galgut J and Clayden J, who had dismissed an appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court.

The Court ruled that an appellate court may sua sponte (on its own motion) dismiss an appeal which has not been filed within the time limitations authorized by statute, even if the district court told the appellant that he had additional time and the appellant relied on the court's guidance. Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure was interpreted that time is of the essence. Additional time granted by the district court judge is not permitted if beyond the stated rules. The ruling may be seen as the Court's attempt to limit the powers of the judicial branch, especially in regard to appeals from criminal convictions.

Obtaining a supersedeas bond may appear to be judicial red tape; however, it serves the best interest of the defendant and plaintiff. The appellant uses a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment, meaning the appellant does not have to pay the full amount of the judgment until the appellate court makes a ruling and then only if the ruling is to affirm the judgment. A surety bond also replaces the need for collateral. The plaintiff, or party to whom the money judgment is awarded, is fully protected by the bond and ensured payment, that is if the appealing party can afford the bond.

23 An appeal can be lodged to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the decision of the Court of First Instance to refuse leave.Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), Order 53, rule 3(4) The appellant should file with the Court of Appeal a notice of appeal, Form CALL-1, the order/judgment of the Court of First Instance and all the documents placed before the Judge of the Court of First Instance. If the appellant wishes to make submissions, they should be contained in a skeleton argument (not an affidavit) submitted with the appeal bundle., reported at [2017] 6 HKC 293, at para.

In S v Chabedi (2005), during a criminal trial Chabedi's attorney had allegedly failed to consult properly with Chabedi, and had failed to recall certain state witnesses, when it became apparent that they could answer questions relating to material issues. On appeal, the court raised the question of whether the appellant had received a fair trial. The court held that it was the duty of the attorney, in the proper performance of his mandate to defend the appellant, to have recalled the witnesses in order to do justice to his client's defense. The attorney's failure to do so brought into question his competency to conduct the appellant's defense.

When Santam later became aware that M had failed to pay any premiums, it cancelled the policy and, on 5 July, 1990 took the car while it was still in possession of the panelbeater. Singh alleged that she was the owner of the car, and that Santam's possession was unlawful. The case hinged on Santam's claim that it had been impoverished and the appellant enriched to the extent of the payment to the panelbeater, and that it was accordingly entitled to retain possession under a lien operative against Singh. The Local Division found for the appellant, whereafter a Full Bench of a Provincial Division found for Santam.

Under the rules of the court, the Society (as appellant) was required to have printed the testimony and proceedings of the initial court. The Society had declined to do so, and the court of appeals concluded that it could not find in favor of the appellant without any printed record. The key question in answering the remaining issue, the court of appeals said, was whether the 1886 entity calling itself the "German Evangelical Society" was, in fact, the same voluntary, unincorporated body which formed the PHC in 1860. The court said it was not and could never be, since as a matter of law it was a completely new entity.

McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellant, John McKane, had no federal constitutional right to an appeal. They held that state courts had the right to grant appellate review at their discretion.

Paras 20, 23, 26. The fact that Siljeur had adhered neither to the police standing orders, nor to the Criminal Procedure Act, in his pursuit of the would-be robbers, did not, the court decided, excuse the appellant from liability.Para 28. The appeal, therefore, was dismissedPara 29.

Crown Prosecution Service [2006] EWHC 192. the Divisional Court upheld the defendant pedestrian's conviction on a charge that, by rashly dashing into the road, he recklessly damaged the vehicle that hit him because "the appellant was aware of the risk and closed his mind to it".

This holding was later implicitly overruled by Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, and the Supreme Court held that pre-indictment interrogations violate the Fifth Amendment, not the Sixth Amendment. As Escobedo was questioned during a custodial interrogation, the result for the appellant would have been the same.

The Appellant was represented by Nigel Griffin QC, John-Paul Waite and Kate Grange (instructed by Treasury Solicitor). The Respondents were represented by Nicholas Blake QC, with White Ryland as instructing solicitors for Limbuela and Tesema and H C L Hanne & Co as instructing solicitors for Adam.

He died in 1965 and US Army officials refused him burial in Arlington National Cemetery. His wife challenged that decision, first losing in US District Court and then winning in the Court of Appeals.408 F.2d 154, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 351 Sylvia H. Thompson, Appellant, v.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jo Ann HARRELSON, Defendant-Appellant. 754 F.2d 1182, No. 83-1204. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, February 15, 1985 In 2003, Chagra recanted his previous statements, stating that someone other than Harrelson had shot Judge Wood.

The agreement to stipulate was communicated to the court prior to the empanelling of the jury. The stipulation was read to the jury in the government's opening statement. The defense counsel referred to the stipulation during his cross-examination. The appellant himself made reference to the stipulation.

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court Case that held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require mandatory appellate review of death penalty cases, and that individuals cannot file cases as next friend without prior relationship to the appellant.

Ct. App. (Austin, TX), September 19, 2013; accessed October 2, 2014.DeLay, Appellant v. Texas, Appellee (Dissenting Opinion), No. 03-11-00087-CR, Tex. Ct. App. (Austin, TX), September 19, 2013; accessed October 2, 2014.Not so fast, Tom Delay, Salon.com, Brad Friedman, September 23, 2013.

The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Canadian Association for Community Living.

Roberts could find no distinction in the two minimum wage laws, but appears to have been inclined to support an overturning of Adkins anyway.Urofsky, at 694. However, Roberts believed the appellant had not taken issue with the Adkins precedent and failed to challenge it.Cushman, at 92–104.

If an appeal to AAO is denied, the appellant can file a motion to reconsider or reopen if there is new evidence that would show that the appeal should have been sustained. Otherwise, the AAO's decision can be appealed within the United States federal judicial system.

Richard's indifference to the war together with his preferential treatment of a select few close friends and advisors angered an alliance of lords that included one of his uncles. This group, known as Lords Appellant, managed to press charges of treason against five of Richard's advisors and friends in the Merciless Parliament. The Lords Appellant were able to gain control of the council in 1388 but failed to reignite the war in France. Although the will was there, the funds to pay the troops was lacking, so in the autumn of 1388 the Council agreed to resume negotiations with the French crown, beginning on 18 June 1389 with the signing of the three-year Truce of Leulinghem. In 1389, Richard's uncle and supporter, John of Gaunt, returned from Spain and Richard was able to rebuild his power gradually until 1397, when he reasserted his authority and destroyed the principal three among the Lords Appellant. In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, Richard II disinherited Gaunt's son, the exiled Henry of Bolingbroke.

Patel then appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the High Court of Australia, and was granted special leave on the ground of appeal that "The Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the convictions of the appellant ... could be supported on the basis that the appellant had breached a duty under s 288 of the [Code]. This section did not apply to the offences of which the appellant was convicted".. On 24 August 2012, the High Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Although the High Court concurred with Justice Byrne and the Court of Appeal on the interpretation of s288, the Court held that a large amount of prejudicial evidence had been admitted at trial due to the prosecution changing its contention (supra) and that "The sheer extent of the prejudicial evidence in the context of a wide-ranging prosecution case is likely to have overwhelmed the jury". The Court also wrote that "The prejudicial effect on the jury was not overcome by the directions given by the trial judge about the limited use that could be made of that evidence".

A supersedeas bond (often shortened to supersedeas), also known as a defendant's appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)Fed. R. App.

Appellant's second contention has merit, i.e. the failure to obtain an arrest warrant vitiates the arrest. As stated above, Inspector Barbarick had probable cause to arrest appellant on the 17th of August, 1972. However, the arrest was not made until six days later—on the 23rd of August.

The appellant, Alexia Harriton, was a 25-year-old woman with severe congenital disabilities that had been caused by her mother's infection with the rubella virus while pregnant with her. See Crennan J at [210]. These disabilities left Harriton unable to care for herself. See Crennan J at [212].

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 (2nd Cir. 1993) was an employment discrimination case brought under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967). The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine.

He wrote the opinion that overturned the conviction of Andrea Yates trial where the panel wrote, "Dr Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. We further conclude that Dr Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant." With that, it a retrial was granted.

The court, however, decided that there was sufficient evidence to deliver a verdict finding that fees paid to Connaghan had then been paid over to Rabbitt.United States of America, Appellee, v. Richard J. Rabbitt, Appellant - United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 583 F.2d 1014 - Submitted Jan.

As a consequence, her employment was terminated. The appellant sought judicial review of the decision to disclose the information contained in the ECRC. This application was dismissed by the High Court in March 2006. She appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal in March 2007.

The appellant successfully applied to the Disciplinary Committee to delete certain paragraphs of the statement of case which had been formulated against him by the Council of the Law Society, on the ground that the facts in those paragraphs did not appear in the Inquiry Committee's report. Consequently, three of the six charges against the appellant and a major portion of one other charge did not require investigation by the Disciplinary Committee. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Law Society applied to the High Court for an order of mandamus to direct the Disciplinary Committee to hear and investigate all the six charges against the appellant.Lim Chor Pee, pp. 228–238, paras. 4–43.

He referred to R v Karg,1961 (1) SA 231 (A). where Schreiner JA said, > It is not wrong that natural indignation of interested persons and of the > community at large should receive some recognition in the sentence that the > Courts impose, and it is not irrelevant to bear in mind that, if sentences > for serious crimes are too lenient, the administration of justice may fall > into disrepute and injured persons may incline to take the law into their > own hands.236. The magistrate had regard, finally, to the criminal record of the appellant. He expressed the view that the court had a duty towards women, and was obliged to protect them against men like the appellant.

PF O'Hagan, QC. (with him TM Mullins), for the appellant, submitted that whether the respondent's rights were in fact infringed by the appellant was disputed on the affidavits, and that the court a quo should not have attempted to decide that dispute without hearing evidence.See Frank v Ohlsson's Cape Breweries Ltd 1924 AD 289.Peterson v Cuthbert & Co. Ltd 145 AD 420. A final interdict should not have been granted on motion: The respondent should have been given a temporary interdict, pending action, or the learned judge could have heard viva voce evidence under Rule of Court 6.See Room Hire Co. (Pty.) Ltd v Jeppe Mansions (Pty.) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).

Naim v. Naim, 197 Va 80; 87 S.E.2d 749 (1955), is a case regarding interracial marriage. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia on June 13, 1955. The Court held the marriage between the appellant (Han Say Naim) and the appellee (Ruby Elaine Naim) to be void under the Code of Virginia (1950). The appellee, a white woman living in Virginia, and the appellant, a Chinese man not living in Virginia, went to North Carolina to be married on June 26, 1952, specifically because there was a Virginia statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, banning interracial marriage, while North Carolina law banned marriages between whites and blacks but not between whites and Asians.

Sumption, p. 635 The Lords Appellant became aware of Richard's dealings with the French, and later of his attempt to raise an army. Rumours began to circulate that Richard had agreed to accept military support from France, and that he would place England under French military occupation. Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, and several lesser nobles mobilized an army of their retainers numbering 4,500 and marched on de Vere's army.Sumption, p. 636 In December 1387, the two armies met at Radcot-on-Thames where the Lords Appellant's army won the Battle of Radcot Bridge against the forces of Robert de Vere. The victory placed the anti-Ricardian Lords Appellant in a position of incontestable strength.Sumption, p.

" The Headquarters Joint Appeals Board (JAB) in its review in JAB Case 2008-062, JAB Report N2070 reached the following conclusions and recommendations. "(1)The Panel was deeply disturbed by the Appellant's treatment at the hands of OIOS and the Organization. The Panel deplored the fact, that it took some two years after the completion of the report for DPKO to inform Appellant of the outcome and secondly, that its communication was ambiguous. The Panel considered that the second report should not have been released before the investigation process had been properly concluded and a determination made one way or the other, that is of guilt or innocence, and then communicated to Appellant so he could reply.

In June 1998 Hayward (the respondent) suffered an injury at work and brought proceedings against the employer. He exaggerated the extent of his injuries in order to achieve a much higher settlement figure of £134,973.11 from Zurich Insurance Company plc (the appellant) who were the employer's insurer. When the claim was settled in October 2003 the appellant did have video evidence of the exaggerated injury but it was only in February 2009 that they had further evidence to demonstrate that Hayward had, in fact, recovered from his injuries a year prior to the original settlement. On this basis the insurer sought to set aside the settlement and also claim damages for deceit.

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which runs as follows: 5\. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases: Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation: The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

The case was argued on April 28, 1986, with Maria Milagros Soto representing the appellant and Lino J. Saldana the appellees. The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Broadcasting Companies, the AFL-CIO, the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the National Broadcasting Company, the Atlantic City Casinos Association and the Association of National Advertisers submitted amici curiae in favor of the appellant. Posadas argued that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not permit restrictions on commercial speech except when such speech failed to meet the four-part test established by the 1980 landmark case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.

The appellant is the party who, having lost part or all their claim in a lower court decision, is appealing to a higher court to have their case reconsidered. This is usually done on the basis that the lower court judge erred in the application of law, but it may also be possible to appeal on the basis of court misconduct, or that a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence. The appellant in the new case can be either the plaintiff (or claimant), defendant, third-party intervenor, or respondent (appellee) from the lower case, depending on who was the losing party. The winning party from the lower court, however, is now the respondent.

Joseph Stacher (c. 1902 – 1977) (alias Doc Stacher, Joseph Rosen, Doc Harris el al)Joseph Stacher, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 258 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1958) was a Jewish syndicate leader who helped bring together the Jewish and Italian Mafia into a national organized crime syndicate.

HCA-The Healthcare Company; Columbia Health Care Corporation; Hospital Corporation of America; and Healthtrust Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-6342 Sixth Circuit Decision the Seventh Circuit,United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Decision. June 30, 2009 United States of America on the relation of Curtis J. Lusby, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

Smalberger ADCJ, Nienaber JA, Farlam JA, Mpati JA and Mthiyane AJA presided. A. Subel SC appeared for the appellant and JPV McNally for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Knowles, Husain Inc, Sandton, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Webber, Wentzel, Bowens, Johannesburg, and Webbers, Bloemfontein.

In February 1985, the NIH reported the positive results of their screening to Glaxo Wellcome, and, on March 16, 1985, Glaxo Wellcome filed a patent application for a new use of AZT in the United Kingdom. The validity of this patent was brought into question by the appellant generic drug manufacturers.

Police approached appellant McFadden in a patrol car. McFadden looked in their direction and ran. The Officers chased McFadden who discarded a firearm into some bushes before the arrest. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County suppressed the evidence of the handgun at trial and the Superior Court reversed.

Police saw two men standing on the sidewalk. Officers approached to speak with the two men while appellant Carroll stood with his hands inside his jacket pockets. Police asked Carroll to remove his hands from his pockets and Carroll turned and fled. Carrol ran into an alley, but tripped and fell.

Alex Ortolani For Law360. October 28, 2011 USC Focuses Ire On Eye Institute Over Lease Permits The Doheny Eye Institute built a new building on USC's campus in 1985 to provide clinical facilities for USC's ophthalmology faculty.University Of Southern California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Doheny Eye Institute, Defendant And Respondent.

He fought against the Scots and then against the French. He was appointed Warden of the East March towards Scotland in 1389, a position he held until his death. He was one of the Lords Appellant to King Richard II who deposed some of the King's court favourites in 1387.

The counsel for the appellant objected to the recharge, but the trial judge's response was that he did not feel that he left the jury with the impression that they must accept the appellant's evidence in order to acquit him. Thus, the appeal to the Court of Appeal was initially dismissed.

USA, et al., Assigned to: District Judge Thomas W. Phillips, 12/5/2002. # Order No. 03-5089, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, David M. Guardino, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America; Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; Special agent Bruce McMillan, Respondents-Appellees, March 21, 2005.

The appellant in the Supreme Court action, Satyam Infoway Ltd., alleged that the respondent, Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had intentionally registered and operated a domain name that was confusingly similar to one owned by Satyam Infoway. Satyam Infoway claimed that it had in 1999, registered several domain names pertaining to its business: sifynet.

The painting depicts the High Court sitting on Tuesday 29 April 2003 to hear the case Purvis v State of New South Wales . The artist, Robert Hannaford, painted the Full Bench (seven member) hearing. Gageler was arguing the case for the appellant and is shown standing at the lectern addressing the court.

Rex v Zikalala1953 (2) SA 568 (A). is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 27, 1953. Zikalala, the appellant, had been charged and convicted of the culpable homicide in causing the death of one Alpheus Tsele. On appeal to the Appellate Division, he successfully argued self-defence.

In 1397 the King moved to destroy the surviving Lords Appellant. Arundel, Mortimer's patron, was convicted of treason and executed. Mortimer was "appealed for" (i.e. charged with) treason, in that his killing of Molineux, the King's commander ten years earlier was deemed in law to be an attempt to murder the King himself.

The chairperson may dismiss the appeal immediately if he or she determines that the appellant is not adversely affected by the minister's decision. Otherwise, the decision of the tribunal is by way of majority. There was no office for the tribunal as it was only called into existence when a dispute arises.

The Respondent sought to recover his costs, but the majority rejected him, saying that the Appellant had reason to believe that the solicitor-client privilege would prevail absent a court judgment to the contrary. The 1976 SCOTUS decision Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California figured substantially in the SCC ruling.

In Gallina v Fraser, the appellant Vincenzo Gallina was convicted in absentia according to established Italian procedure for two robberies. The verdict in Gallina has been since interpreted to suggest that the presence of legal counsel alone is, in certain cases, insufficient to give an in absentia conviction that establishes probable cause.

On appeal, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mahoney , Meagher and Sheller , held that the rule in Yerkey v Jones, should no longer be applied as it had been overruled by Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio... The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia..

See also He served the jail sentence and paid the fine on the day it was announced. In deciding to reduce the sentence, High Court Judge L.P. Thean said that a "nominal custodial sentence" was sufficient given the mitigating circumstances in Knight's case.In his judgment, Thean J. said, "I consider that the imposition of the nominal custodial sentence is appropriate in this case; I do not consider it at all a farce. It signifies that in the court's view, the appellant must suffer a custodial sentence, albeit a nominal one, and also that, but for the very strong mitigating and other circumstances in his favour, a substantive term of imprisonment would have been meted out to the appellant": see Knight v.

It was submitted that baboons also fell within this category. In any event there was ample evidence, the State contended, to show that the appellant had knowledge of the vicious tendencies of the baboon. The only inference to be drawn from all the evidence was that, if the appellant was not in fact the owner, he, at the very least, had the custody and control of the animal. It was clear in South African law that the owner of a vicious animal which attacks a person who was lawfully at the place where he was injured, and who neither provoked the attack nor by his negligence contributed to his own injury, was liable, as owner, to make good the resulting injury.

This type of application will only succeed in certain exceptional circumstances. The High Court refused to grant the appellant leave on the basis that he had not satisfied the threshold set out in G. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1994][1994] 1 I.R. 374 which is that: > "the onus of proof which is on an accused person who seeks an order > prohibiting his trial on the ground that circumstances have occurred which > would render it unfair is that he should establish that there is a real risk > that by reason of those circumstances (which in that case also was pre-trial > publicity) he could not obtain a fair trial." Nor had he satisfied any higher threshold which might be required of the appellant.

Murray instituted action in the High Court in which he claimed damages for loss of income consequent upon his alleged constructive dismissal from the South African Navy, because its "continual unfair and ill-treatment" of him over a period of some two and a half years had left him with no alternative but to resign from his post. The Navy's response to the operational conundrum involving the appellant had been to offer him, immediately prior to his resignation, an alternative post at Naval Headquarters in Pretoria. The Navy made no effort, however, to explain the job to the appellant, and so he rejected the offer. Had Murray been covered by the LRA, he would have had specific remedies in terms of the Act.

He noted that "If, in fact, the appellees are descended from Indians, it is incumbent on the appellant to prove that they are slaves; the appellees are not bound to prove the contrary.""Will of Robert Poythress, filed in Chesterfield County in 1743". Note: Although most of Houlder Hudgins' property was located further south in coastal Mathews County, Virginia, two slaves named Nan and another named Hannah were associated with the Butterwood Swamp and the Nottoway River in Prince George County much nearer Richmond. The justices of the Virginia Supreme Court held that the appellant had not proved that Wright had any maternal African ancestry and said that, as Indians had been considered free since at least 1705, she and her children were also free.

Under the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), a Board cannot put a sole appellant in a worse position than if he had not appealed the first instance decision. Hence in relation to appeals, the term "prohibition of reformatio in peius" essentially means that a person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. Thus, in general, EPO Boards of Appeal are prevented in opposition appeal proceedings from going beyond the request of a sole appellant to put it in a worse position than it was before it appealed. "Binding effect of requests - no reformatio in peius". The central case detailing this principle is G 4/93 consolidated with G 9/92.

In point of fact, it was his close relationship to King Richard which was the catalyst for the formation of the Lords Appellant which was an organised group of noblemen who seized political control of the kingdom from King Richard. In the same year of his marriage to Agnes, de Vere led royal forces against the Lords Appellant but the former were defeated at Radcot Bridge on 20 December 1387, and de Vere, after escaping by leaping into the river on horseback and galloping away on the other side, made his way to London. He was forced into exile by Parliament in 1388 and went to live in Louvain, Brabant. Robert de Vere was subsequently declared a traitor, and his honours and properties were forfeited.

This case is an appeal of that decision, by the Appellant (the Minister). It was established that the Mr. S's mother and sister were financially dependent on Mr. S. However, due to Mr.S's only income being his social welfare payments, the Minister deemed that the reunification would be a financial burden to the State.

In May 2013, the appellant was offered employment in the Direct Provision facility. He applied for permission to take up this employment to the Minister for Justice and Equality. However, the Minister for Justice and Equality refused on the grounds that such employment was prohibited by Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996.

Appellees sought to amortize the value of the life estate in subsequent tax returns, which appellant Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed. The Commissioner disallowed the deductions for amortization on the ground that taxpayers' life interest was "acquired by gift, bequest, or inheritance" and that the deductions were therefore prohibited by § 273 of the Code.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security[2010] 1 All SA19 (SCA).Case No. 514/08. is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard II, Volume VI, 1396-1399. (London: Mackie and Co, 1909). Page 115, 4 May 1397 Shortly after this Richard II begins to move against the prior Lords Appellant. Thomas of Woodstock is captured and sent to Calais, and Sir Thomas Mortimer flees the country to avoid a treason charge.

Police responded to a radio call that unknown persons were selling narcotics. When police arrived on scene, three males including appellant Matos, fled as the officers approached. During the chase, Matos discarded a plastic bag containing cocaine. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County suppressed the drug evidence and the Superior Court reversed.

Appellants > did not have permission or invitation to enter the fort. There had not been > prior arrangement for the sale of marijuana between McLoren and appellants. > Appellant Jason was carrying a folding pocketknife. There is no evidence > that appellants Micah, Hein, or Miliotti carried weapons or that any of them > knew Jason carried a pocketknife.

One of Sanford's earliest appearances before the Supreme Court came as an attorney representing the appellant Knoxville Iron Company, in Knoxville Iron Company v. Harbison (1901). The court ruled in favor of Harbison and upheld states' right to ban companies from paying employees in scrip rather than cash.John Vile, Knoxville Iron Company v. Harbison.

Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2009), was heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2009. Plaintiff-appellee Carl Bryan was tasered by defendant-appellant Officer Brian MacPherson after being pulled over to the side of the road for failure to wear a seat belt.

Early Steppenwolf is a collection of live recordings by Steppenwolf when they were still known as "The Sparrow" [nee: "The Sparrows"]. It was released in July 1969 on the ABC Dunhill Records label. Prior to the formation of the Steppenwolf partnership in 1968,Nicholas Kassbaum, Aka Nick St. Nicholas, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Steppenwolf Productions, Inc.

Richard II rewarded those who had supported him against Gloucester and the Lords Appellant with a plethora of new titles. Upon the usurpation and accession of King Henry IV in 1399, many of those titles were placed under attainder, due to the complicity of their holders in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester.

Morrisey appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which in 2016 again rejected the suit, finding that West Virginia has suffered no injury-in-fact and thus lacked standing.State of West Virginia, ex rel. Patrick Morrisey, Appellant v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellee (July 1, 2016).

Curtis and Hoyt (Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) offered the following arguments in their brief: (1) The manure in question was the personal property abandoned by its owners. (The owners of the horses.) Bla. Com-, 387, 4022 Kent Com. 356 (2) It never became a part of the real estate on which it was abandoned.

The disciplinary committee of the Singapore Society of Accountants suspended the appellant, an auditor, from practice for a period of five years after finding him guilty of an act or default discreditable to an accountant under section 33(1)(b) of the Accountants Act.Accountants Act (Cap. 2, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the ("AA"), s. 25.

A refusal to grant Income Support may be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. This should be done working one month of the date of any decision under dispute. If the appellant has good cause, this deadline can be extended a further 12 months (making a total of 13 months from the date of decision).

Myriad's appeal was granted, and the case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Myriad, the defendant- appellant, was supported by at least 15 amicus briefs and the plaintiff- appellees' position received support from 12 amicus briefs.Donald Zuhn for Patent Docs Blog, January 27, 2011. Amicus Briefs in AMP v.

National Board of Medical Examiners, appellant, D.C. Civ. No. 99-cv-04532. AltLaw The USMLE assesses a physician's ability to apply knowledge, concepts, and principles, and to determine fundamental patient-centered skills that are important in health and disease and that constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care.2010 Bulletin of Information: USMLE.

Para 26. The court held that, on each of those policy considerations, the appellant ought to be held liable; in other words, the negligence of the appellant's employee was wrongful.Paras 28-29. The court held further that the test for determining remoteness of damage (under the rubric of legal causation) was a flexible one.

3) and the U.S. Supreme Court (461 U.S. 352, 356, n. 4) used this construction in voiding § 647(e) for vagueness. William Kolender was an appellant who was acting in his capacity as Chief of Police of San Diego, as was John Duffy who was acting in his capacity as Sheriff of San Diego County.

Rather than applying to have the High Court decision set aside (on the basis that the order should not have been made by Kearns P in the appellant's absence), the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that his case did involve issues of defamation and that the High Court judge was biased against him.

The fact that an appellant represents themselves in court does not alter the duties owed to that court, or the obligation to comply with the rules of court. Citing from the case of O'Reilly McCabe v. Minister for Justice,& Patrick Cusack Smith & Co (Agents of Thomas McCabe, Ward of Court & Minor)[2009] IESC 52 [33].

513, para. 47. However, this does not mean that all laws are justified whatever their nature. Laws which violate fundamental rules of natural justice, or those that are absurd or arbitrary cannot be considered law. The Court also held that all the cases which the appellant relied on concerned the offence of murder instead of drug- related offences.

Appellant Cross, a federal court clerk, filed a claim against the United States to be paid fees for making triplicate copies of original declarations of intention for naturalization and attaching the seal of the court to the same. The United States Court of Claims (then simply the Court of Claims) denied his claim. The clerk appealed.

In S v D, an important case in South African criminal law, the appellant had attempted to rape an eleven-year-old girl. He was a 44-year-old first offender. The complainant had not suffered physical injuries; there was no evidence of psychological damage. The sentence was altered on appeal to three years' imprisonment, half suspended.

S v Vika,2010 (2) SACR 444 (ECG).CA&R316;/2009. an important case in South African criminal law, was heard on May 12, 2010. MM Xozwa, instructed by the Justice Centre, Grahamstown, appeared for the appellant; H. Obermeyer (DPP, Grahamstown) appeared for the State. The case was an appeal against sentence imposed in a regional court.

Pierson was among the litigants who pursued damages against the police based on the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and was the named appellant in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Pierson v. Ray which found that the police had Qualified Immunity, and rejected Pierson's claims. He died on April 13, 1997, in St. Petersburg, Florida.

With respect to the leapfrogging appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not necessary to consider this point as appellant has "an independent possibility of appealing directly to this Court under Article 34.5.4" of the Irish Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court referred certain issues of European Union Law to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Secondly (and the reason why so many complaints are dismissed as inadmissible), the appellant must have already claimed the violation of the above-mentioned rights while making use of the regular remedies. The complaint must be written. And it is subject to a deadline. Against laws the deadline is one year after the coming into force.

Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein.

As required by the Land Act of 1851, a claim for Rancho La Jota was filed with the Public Land Commission in 1852. The Land Commission rejected Yount’s claim, but the United States District Court reversed the decision.United States. District Court (California: Northern District) Land Case 34 NDGeorge C. Yount, Claiming The Rancho La Jota, Appellant, vs.

Appellant claimed that he was relieved of an assumption of risk under common law rules. The case involved the application of a congressional act in respect of automatic couplers, the primary question being whether locomotives were required to be equipped with couplers. Another issue was that the dining car was empty and was not used in moving interstate traffic.

Isador Lubin as Industrial Commissioner represented the Appellant. The court summarized the appeal as follows: > Two separate but related questions arise in this consolidated proceeding. We > are first to decide whether, on the theory that his employment by the > Communist Parties (N. Y. and U. S. A.) was not "covered employment", > respondent Albertson is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

In very rare cases, the Court may not call on counsel for the appellant and instead calls directly on counsel for the respondent.Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan , 2005 SCC 13, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188. However, in most cases, the Court hears from all counsel and then reserves judgment to enable the justices to write considered reasons.

In 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision in Mr. Sylliboy's case. In the case of Simon vs. The Queen, the Court found that the appellant, James Simon of Nova Scotia, a registered Mi'kmaq, had the right to hunt for food. Simon had relied for his defense on the same Peace and Friendship Treaty as Sylliboy.

Arundel was a key member of the group of nobles called the Lords Appellant, who had emerged as opponents of Richard II and the royal favourite Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland. Mortimer was closely associated with them and is known to have visited Arundel's house regularly during 1387, the critical year in the Appellants' rise to power.

In the mid-1970s, Taggares and his competitor, J. R. Simplot, were involved in the largest default in the history of American commodities futures trading.Joseph STROBL, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, etc. The incident, which led to a fine and temporary suspension from futures trading, nearly destroyed the New York Mercantile Exchange.

It was held that "although every citizen had a moral or social duty to assist the police, there was no relevant legal duty to that effect in the circumstances of the present case, and the appellant had been entitled to decline to answer the questions put to him and (prior to his arrest) to accompany the police officer".

In most appeals, the parties argue opposing positions. In this case, both the appellee (the Menominee) and the appellant (the United States) argued that the decision of the Court of Claims should be affirmed. The State of Wisconsin, as amicus curiae, argued that the Court of Claims ruling should be reversed.Menominee Tribe of Indians, 391 U.S. at 407.

Congress enacted the Federal Lottery Act in 1895, which prohibited the sending of lottery tickets across state lines. The appellant, Charles Champion, was indicted for shipping Paraguayan lottery tickets from Texas to California. The indictment was challenged on the grounds that the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to prohibit commerce of any item.

Lane represented the political advocacy group Liberty Lobby as an attorney when the group was sued over an article in The Spotlight newspaper implicating E. Howard Hunt (a convicted Watergte burglar) in the Kennedy assassination. Hunt sued for defamation and was awarded $650,000 in damages. Lane successfully got this judgment reversed on appeal.E. Howard Hunt, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v.

After direct appeal, the conviction is considered final. An appeal from the post conviction court proceeds just as a direct appeal. That is, it goes to the intermediate appellate court, followed by the highest court. If the petition is granted the appellant could be released from incarceration, the sentence could be modified, or a new trial could be ordered.

He was in private practice in Rochester] from 1975 to 1979. An adjunct instructor of law, Larimer taught at St. John Fisher College from 1978 to 1981. He was a chief appellant law assistant for the Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department in Rochester from 1979 to 1981. He was in private practice in Rochester from 1982 to 1987.

Sexual harassment first became codified in U.S. law as the result of a series of sexual harassment cases in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of the early women pursuing these cases were African American, often former civil rights activists who applied principles of civil rights to sex discrimination. Williams v. Saxbe (1976) and Paulette L. Barnes, Appellant, v.

Leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was then sought, which the Appellate Division refused to grant. Nevertheless, the appeal was granted by way of special leave to appeal by Order in Council. Oral arguments were heard over ten days from May to July 1968. Sydney Kentridge and Louis Blom-Cooper appeared for the appellant.

Appellant was employed as a lay instructor by the Blessed Virgin Mary Catholic Church. She was discharged from her employment at the age of 50, after 29 years of employment. She had a steady record of favorable performance reviews. Had her employment continued, she would have been the highest-paid lay instructor on the school's staff.

In April 1999, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, formally refused to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre, instead allowing a mining company, BHP Billiton to commence mining operations. The appellant, Kevin Buzzacott, claimed that Downer's failure to pursue World Heritage listing amounted to genocide against his people.

C. Elvin Feltner, Jr., Defendant-appellant, Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc" Justia.com (July 9, 2001) and 2) following the District Court's decision in favor of Columbia, Feltner appealed the decision, insisting that a jury should decide the amount of the damages assessed instead.Cornell University School of Law – Legal Information Institute "Feltner v. Columbia Television Pictures, Inc.

Connolly v. DPP [2007] is an English criminal law case, in which the appellant sought to invoke the right to freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act 1998, without the qualification to that right being held to outweigh the right in relation to obscene or offensive hate mail directed as part of a mainstream political campaign.

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH, Appellant, v. NATIONAL MEXICAN AMERICAN ANTI-DEFAMATION COMMITTEE, INC., et al. - 510 F.2d 1246 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions Although it developed from an ad-hoc committee in 1967 the NMAADC further wrote letters to advertisers, broadcasters, held press conferences stating their case and threatening boycotts.

The respondent then travelled to Ohio to attend the divorce hearing and the divorce had subsequently been secured. In 1983, the appellant and respondent were married at the Registry Office in Dublin. The application of registry was on the basis the respondent was a bachelor. There had been no reservation or impediment noted during the marriage ceremony.

International students who have been accepted will need to complete the necessary paperwork for visas (such as an I-20 form). Rejection letters from most schools will mention that there is no appeal process but many schools, especially public universities such as the University of California have a formal appeal process requiring "new and compelling" information from the appellant.

After water had been pumped from it, Four Winds was towed to Constitution Dock on 27 January. At about 4:30pm, Neill-Fraser and others went on board. The appellant pointed out a number of anomalies on the yacht. She said that a green rope on the starboard side was in disarray and out of place.

On 23 March 2009, Sanchez had another telephone conversation with Neill Fraser in which the appellant said that although she had driven down to Marieville Esplanade that night, she left the car there and walked back home to West Hobart for the exercise. It was the first time she said she had left the car at Marieville Esplanade.

In a further appeal against sentence, to the SCA, counsel for the state submitted that there had been a duplication of convictions, as the three robbery charges arose from actions committed with a single intent in a continuous transaction. The appellant was allowed to amend the grounds of appeal to include an appeal against the additional convictions for robbery.

The court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2013. Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC, argued for the appellants. Attorney Michael T. Morley was counsel of record for Appellant McCutcheon and was primarily responsible for preparing his principal brief. United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued for the appellees: the Federal Election Commission and the Obama administration.

In Halimatussaadiah v. Public Service Commission, Malaysia (1992),Halimatussaadiah v. Public Service Commission, Malaysia [1992] 1 M.L.J. 513, H.C. (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). the appellant claimed she had been wrongfully dismissed from her employment due to her refusal to comply with employment conditions that prohibited any attire that covered a female public servant's face while on duty.

Noting that the Supreme Court had given the appellant "an extraordinary degree of latitude",Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton [2016] IESC 16, [44]. MacMenamin J sent back the remainder of the proceedings to the High Court to be dealt with as a non-jury case.Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton [2016] IESC 16, [55].

Next, the court turned to consider whether the facts justified the appellant's complaint that the person considering the plans did not apply his mind or, if he did, should have been satisfied that its property would probably suffer a reduction in value if the building were erected. The court found that the issues raised by the appellant in his objection to first respondent's renovations were all considered by the authority. The appellant was unable to show that the local authority misdirected itself in either its legal interpretation or factual application of section 7(1)(b)(ii) and, accordingly, failed to establish any basis for the court to have interfered in the exercise of its discretion. The court also found no merit in the challenge to the delegation of power to the plans examiner.

Thus, the appellant could not object that some of the charges against him were based on facts not mentioned in the Inquiry Committee's report.Lim Chor Pee, pp. 239–240, para. 46. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore [1985–1986] S.L.R.(R.) 998, C.A. (Singapore) ("Lim Chor Pee (C.A.)").

A similar justification was used in the later case of Clifford v. Kentucky. A white police officer testified against Charles Clifford, an African American appellant at the Kentucky Supreme Court based on his evaluation of race from spoken language. The presiding Judge cited the findings of Sanchez v. People in justifying the officer's claim of identifying the suspect based on overheard speech.

In S v Ingram, an important case in South African criminal law, the appellant was a 25-year-old first offender who had stabbed the deceased once, in the heart. He expressed genuine remorse for his conduct. His sentence was altered on appeal to five years' imprisonment in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.Act 51 of 1977.

In contrast to the court imposed fine, when the subject has paid the fine, he will keep the right to go into appeal. The subject can go into appeal within six weeks. In the first instance, the subject appeals to the public prosecutor.Art. 6 section 1 Wahv The prosecutor shall withdraw the fine completely when he thinks the appellant has right.

Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), was a 2003 legal case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appellant was Ronald A. Williams, an African American prisoner; the suit was brought against James Price, the prison superintendent of State Correctional Institution – Pittsburgh, and D. Michael Fisher, the then-Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

In response to a letter from the Minister for Justice giving notice of a proposed deportation order, counsel for the appellant made representations to the Minister, arguing that her removal would contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The letter emphasised the request to be permitted to submit expert evidence on Nigeria that outlined the likelihood of subjection to FGM.

Cape Town & District Gas, Light & Coke Co, Ltd v Director of Valuations1949 (4) SA 197 (C). is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by De Villiers JP and Searle J on August 5, 1949, with judgment on August 30. P. Charles appeared for the appellant and HG Lawrence KC for the respondent.

Fanny Brough, ages 2½, 16 and 22, Strand Magazine, 1892 In the summer of 1878, in London, Brough married Richard Smith Bull, an actor and stage manager who went by the nom de théâtre, Richard Smith Boleyn.Fanny Whiteside Brough, London, England, Crisp's Marriage License Index, 1713–1892; Ancestry.comNational Archives Divorce Court File: 4867. Appellant: Frances Amelia Bull otherwise Frances Amelia Boleyn.

In an appeal from a conviction of culpable homicide on a charge of murder, it appeared that the trial judge had repeatedly directed the jury that they could not acquit the appellant, on his plea of self-defence, unless they came to the conclusion that a reasonable man in his situation would have feared that his life was in danger.

Dorothy T. Carter, the widow of Sydney J. Carter, was the taxpayer and appellant in the case. Mrs. Carter had been paid by Mr. Carter's employer what he would have earned until the end of the fiscal year. Mrs. Carter did not include that amount as income on a joint return she filed. The joint return for 1960 filed by Mrs.

Under Section 9 of the Forests Practices Act 1985 an appeal can be made to the Forest Practices Tribunal against a refusal to grant, or the granting of a Private Timber Reserve. Twenty eight appeals were lodged with the Tribunal, 7 were upheld and 21 dismissed. In two Appeals, the Appellant offered no proof to the Tribunal hearing . In five other appeals .

According to John Hungerford Pollen, Blackwell's "main defect appears to have been an entire want of experience in government, Joined wit xaggerated ideas of his position as Superior."Pollen, John Hungerford. The Institution of the Archpriest Blackwell, Longmans, Green, 1916, p. 26 The English government was keen to turn the controversy to its advantage, and encouraged Blackwell's "Appellant" enemies behind the scenes.

R v Zinn,1946 AD 346. an important case in South African law, was heard in the Appellate Division on 6 December 1945, with judgment handed down on 13 March 1946. Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA, and Davis AJA. NE Rosenberg KC (with him D. Gould) appeared for the appellant, and C. Norman Scoble, for the Crown.

The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted in the District Court of the City and County of Denver of conspiracy to perform criminal abortions. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Colorado (187 P.2d 926, 928). Wolf appealed the conviction by a writ of certiorari and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal.

The critical circumstances had to have been of the employer's making; in addition, the employer had to be to blame, culpably responsible in some way, for the intolerable conditions. The conduct had to have lacked "reasonable and proper cause."Para 13. There could be little doubt in Cameron's mind that, when the appellant had resigned his position at work, it had been intolerable.

The lack of explanation, follow-up and elucidation did not constitute fair dealing. The navy had breached its common-law duty to treat Murray fairly, thus rendering his resignation a constructive dismissal.Paras 55, 59. Had the navy adequately and fairly explained the post to the appellant, and the backup it offered, his position would not, Cameron found, have been intolerable.

Instead, Henry would be required to ask for the lands from Richard.B. Bevan, Henry IV, New York, 1994, p. 51. After some hesitation, Henry met with the exiled Thomas Arundel, former Archbishop of Canterbury, who had lost his position because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant. Henry and Arundel returned to England while Richard was on a military campaign in Ireland.

Norris was born in Somerset. After receiving minor orders at Reims in 1590, Norris went to the Venerable English College, Rome, where he completed his studies and was ordained priest. In May, 1596, he was sent on the English mission, and was one of the appellant clergy in 1600. In the prosecutions following upon the Gunpowder Plot, Norris was committed to the Bridewell.

Purcell agreed and filed each employee's individual appeal. Each appellant, including Mitsuye Endo, contributed $10 to Purcell's legal fund. As the employment lawsuits against the California State Personnel Board were pending in court, Purcell's clients were evacuated out of Sacramento to internment camps. Mitsuye Endo, herself was incarcerated, along with her entire family, first transported to the Sacramento Assembly Center, i.e.

They are not the guarantee itself.Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 at 542. Rather, L'Heureux-Dubé preferred an approach giving substantial judicial discretion, in which the appellant must demonstrate that there is (1) "a legislative distinction", (2) that this distinction leads to a denial of any equality right as per Section 15, and (3) that the distinction is "discriminatory".

Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 and the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation, Id. at 247, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854.' United States v. Rothman, 492 F.2d at 1265. Not only was appellant Watson in custody, he was in custody in violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the agents had failed to obtain an arrest warrant.

After the war ended, he returned to East Tennessee and took over the family- owned welding shop. He owned 30% of the company with his two brothers, Jerome S. Glazer and Louis A. Glazer (owning 25% each) and his brother-in-law, I. B. Cohen (with a 20% share) as partners.Guilford Glazer, Appellant, v. Jerome S. Glazer and Louis A. Glazer, Appellees.

PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents. The case revolved around the requirements for Anton Piller orders. Such orders, the court found, are for preservation of evidence; they are not a substitute for possessory or proprietary claims. They require built-in protection measures such as the appointment of an independent attorney to supervise their execution.

The sole constitutional attack upon the statutes in question are under the Fourteenth Amendment and confined the physician's contention for depravity of life—not appellant's but his patients'. Thus, the life of the appellant himself is not in danger. No genuine case or controversy essential to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court for this subject-matter existed until Griswold v. Connecticut.

The appellants (Benoy Berry) had entered into an agency agreement with the respondent. Under the agreement, the appellants would receive commissions on sales of polymer notes. The agreement provided for its automatic renewal every two years; unless terminated in accordance with its termination clauses. In early 2008, the respondent induced termination of the agreement by the appellant by means of a false representation.

However, according to the same court, his crimes included aggravated rape (at age 16) of a 10-year-old child and armed robbery (at age 11), and one judge noted "the appellant is a thoroughly unpleasant man having been convicted of serious and odious crimes". This has been an opportunity for some to castigate judges for being out of touch.

The Appellate Commission (AC) has a judicial mission because its main function is to hear and resolve disputes of the teaching staff and administrative personnel against the decisions of the University Service Commission. The decisions of the commission are binding. However, in the case of dissatisfaction with the Appellate Commission's decisions, the appellant can approach the Supreme Court for the final decision.

Shandong Linglong Rubber Company was found guilty of marketing versions of tires that were based on blueprints stolen by a former employee of a Florida businessman and ordered to pay $26 million to the Floridian. Cruz worked on the Chinese company's appellant brief. The appeals court denied the appeal and affirmed the jury's award. Cruz represented drug manufacturer B. Braun Medical Inc.

The first named Respondent was Australian and wanted the infant to meet her family living in Australia. The second named Respondent had gotten a temporary job in Australia for the year and they also rented out their home. In the High Court, the Appellant obtained an interim order and later an interlocutory order. The Respondents appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The Crown appealed from the Quebec Queen's Bench to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting in London. (The Supreme Court of Canada had not yet been created.) As the accused did not appear by counsel, the Committee heard the case ex parte on 11 March 1873. The appellant Crown was represented by Sir John Karslake, Q.C., and H.M. Bompas.R. v.

Following his numerous visits to the 1867 Paris Exhibition on behalf of Engineering, where he contracted syphilis, he became increasingly delighted by London prostitutes whose pleasures he much enjoyed. In the divorce petition filed against him by his wife Elizabeth, Colburn is accused of infecting her with syphilis, physical abuse, and adultery with five different prostitutes.Divorce Court File: 1433. Appellant: Elizabeth Susanna Colburn.

The Election Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's claims, affirming the Election of the first Respondent. The Appellant appealed. This Court (Supreme Court) affirmed the decision of the tribunal and dismissed this appeal. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on September 26, 1979, and the presiding judge was Atanda Fatai Williams, while the only dissenting judge was Kayode Eso.

The husband, the appellant, was the owner of a motor car. He said to his wife, the defendant, that he would give it to her as a birthday present. The car was registered in the husband's name, and subsequently re-registered in his name. The husband received a petrol allowance. The wife had custody of the car but used her husband’s petrol allowance.

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction compared to state courts. Federal courts can only rule over cases with subject matter dealing with Congress or the Constitution. Federal-question jurisdiction gives the federal court subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the appellant has claimed a violation of the Constitution. Federal-question jurisdiction was used by the Supreme Court to hear this case.

The judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was heard on 11 August 2016, and the judgment of the court was delivered on 12 August 2016. Clive Sheldon led the argument for the appellant (the Labour Party), and David Goldstone, for the respondent (the claimants). The appeal was allowed and the order from the High Court was set aside.

The court reiterated the view in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra that in death penalty sentencing, public opinion is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after taking into consideration the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant that was evidenced by his good conduct in prison.

However, what the majority found most important to their acquittal was; > 'the improbability of the appellant acting as he was alleged to have done in > the circumstances prevailing on that night, namely, on a squeaky bed in an > unlocked bedroom which was only a short distance from, and within hearing > distance of, another bedroom occupied by the appellant's wife, in a fully > occupied, small house' In light of all of the evidence, it was found that: > 'No doubt the jury believed the complainant and disbelieved the appellant > and did so having seen and heard them both. But even making full allowance > for the manner in which both gave their evidence, the matters which cast > doubt upon the prosecution case, to which we have referred, remain > unanswered.' For that reason the majority jointly decided to allow the appeal.

Despite its final rulings, the Supreme Court may review any case upon the filing of review petition of any party to any civil and criminal case of any decisions, judgements/rulings have been pronounced by the Supreme Court. The party that filed an appealed through the supreme court advocates to the Supreme Court is the Appellant and the non-mover is the respondent, where all case names before the Supreme Court are styled "petitioner/appellant vs. defendants/respondent". All decisions that are pronounced by the supreme court, after hearing the review petitions, are considered as final rulings that are to be binding on all other courts in Pakistan. The Constitution also empowers the Supreme Court to call upon any authority, either an executive or judicial, to act in aid of the Supreme Court to ensure its rulings are delivered to complete justice.

The appellant generally submits a document of legal arguments called a "brief," a written attempt to persuade the judges of appellate court that the decision of the trial court should be reversed. If selected for an "oral argument," appellants may present a short spoken argument to the court. No additional pieces of evidence or witnesses are considered. The ruling made by the appellate court is usually final.

They won their suit but for reasons unknown the estates were bothPage and Willis-Bund: Rock or Ake – Manors. soon in the hands of Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick, one of the Lords Appellant, who was temporarily stripped of all his lands during Richard II's counter-coup of 1397. A medieval monk, depicted on a gravestone at Rock. The church was monastic property.

Jetha v Rex(1929) 50 NPD 91. is an important case in South African criminal law, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on April 22, 1929, by Dove-Wilson JP, Tatham J and Matthews J. It was an appeal from the Durban Magistrate's Court. TB Horwood appeared for the appellant and JDM Rosenow for the Crown.

He was one of the members of the royal household arrested by the "Lords Appellant" in late 1387 for treason, and was imprisoned first in Bristol Castle and then in the Tower of London. However, he was eventually released without penalty. From 1385 to 1390 he was Archdeacon of Norfolk. In 1389, Mitford was elected to be Bishop of St David's but was rejected by the Pope.

In the present case, one of the ingredients of the offence, Viljoen JA held, was intent, not negligence. The complainant, a girl of sixteen years, was seriously manhandled by the appellant, who showed no remorse afterwards. The magistrate had correctly taken into account his previous criminal history. This showed a singular lack of discipline, said the magistrate, who correctly described him as a liability to society.

This meant they did not hear all the oral evidence and submissions. The High Court held that this had substantially prejudiced the appellant and constituted a fundamental breach of natural justice. On the other hand, mere absence from a hearing does not necessarily lead to undue prejudice. It was held in Re Teo Choo Hong (1995)Re Teo Choo Hong [1995] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 441, H.C. (Singapore).

A plainclothes police officer permitted the appellant to enter his car. She then identified herself as a prostitute and discussed terms. The Court did not believe that this fell within the intent of parliament to prohibit acts "which would contribute to public inconvenience." Four judges indicated that they would not have considered an automobile a "public place," also excluding the actions from section 195.1.

This refusal was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. However, that decision was itself quashed in February 2014, and the application process was restarted. The appellant had been in Direct Provision for nearly six years and there would be a further delay before his application was finalised. If his application was unsuccessful he could apply for subsidiary protection, which would also take a number of years.

Dawson J delivered a dissenting judgment in which he said, "it is my view that the appellant bank was not guilty of any non-disclosure amounting to a breach of duty on its part" and that the facts did not point to the Amadios having been disadvantaged and that, therefore, the bank was not guilty of either unconscionable conduct or misrepresentation. per Dawson J at [25].

The appellant contends, based upon Miller, that the Fourth Amendment requires officers to knock and announce prior to entering the residence. However, Miller involved a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, which specified that a law enforcement officer, executing a search warrant, may break open a door only if, "after notice of his authority and purpose," he is denied admittance. The Fourth Amendment was not mentioned.

S v Combrink2012 (1) SACR 93 (SCA). is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Brand JA, Ponnan JA and Shongwe JA on May 25, 2011, with judgment handed down on June 23. BC Bredenkamp SC appeared for the appellant, and JJ Kotze for the State. Its significance lies primarily in the area of punishment and sentencing.

The tribunal was constituted under the Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW). It sat as a three-member panel. The former chairperson of the tribunal was a magistrate of the Local Court of New South Wales appointed by the Attorney General of New South Wales. The other two panel members consisted of persons nominated by the Minister for Ports and by a person nominated by the appellant.

On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals found the law (and verdict) not to violate Patterson's Constitutional rights as guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court. It was argued March 1, 1977 and decided June 17, 1977 Victor Rubino argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Betty Friedlander.

It is uncertain when the affair between Lawson and Beaumont began, but Beaumont's wife purchased an announcement in the edition of 30 November 1937 of The Times asking for a "dissolution" of their marriage "on the ground of his adultery with Miss Mary Lawson." That year the Beaumonts were divorced,Catalogue description for Document No. J 77/3752/4301. Divorce Court File: 4301. Appellant: Enid Corinne Beaumont.

He argued that the majority had expanded the scope beyond the questions presented by the appellant and that therefore a sufficient record for judging the case did not exist. Stevens argued that at a minimum the Court should have remanded the case for a fact-finding hearing, and that the majority did not consider other compilations of data, such as the Congressional record for justifying BCRA §203.

Anne also interceded on behalf of Simon de Burley, Richard II's former tutor during his minority, in the 1388 Merciless Parliament. Despite her pleas to the Lords Appellant, Burley was executed.Some chronicles record that Anne knelt before the earl of Arundel, while others indicate Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester. For Arundel, see: Chronique de la traïson et mort de Richart Deux roy D'Engleterre, ed.

The appeal to the Crown Court is by way of rehearing. New evidence may be called, but the Crown Court has no power to amend information upon which the appellant was convicted (or revoke amendments made by the magistrates' court).Garfield v Maddocks [19784] QB 7. The Crown Court will consider whether the decision of the magistrates' court was correct rather than whether it was reasonable.

Its membership included fifty percent of the Fortune 1000 companies. "GUIDE's principal purposes are to contribute to the improvement of data processing products and services and to provide a forum for the development, exchange and dissemination of information concerning large data processing equipment and systems." "GUIDE's principal activity is the sponsorship of week-long conferences held three times each year." Brief of Appellant at 3.

The Blue Mouse Theatre in Seattle was constructed around 1920 and demolished in 1972Ken McIntyre Blue Mouse Theatre (Seattle) Cinema Treasures to make way for the construction of Peoples National Bank of Washington's "high-rise banking facility".Court filing James J. CHERBERG and Arlene M. Cherberg, his wife, Respondents, v. PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON, a corporation, Defendants, Joshua Green Corporation, a corporation, Appellant. No. 2089--II.

Appellant had been placed under arrest and was in custody at the time that he gave the officers permission to search his car. '. . . In looking at the factual issue of voluntariness, the court must be aware of the 'vulnerable subjective state' of the defendant as well as the possibility of 'subtly coercive police questions.' Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 229, 93 s,.

This has the same effect as dismissal on the merits. #Otherwise, of the appeal is issued. Should the appeal be accepted, the act in question may be overturned in whole or in part and any past enforcement may be declared invalid (and the appellant restored to their pre-enforcement position). The act may also be amended to the extent necessary to make it legal.

Likewise, in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal an issue of law "by leave" from the trial court or the appellate court. The ability of the prosecution to appeal a decision in favor of a defendant varies significantly internationally. All parties must present grounds to appeal, or it will not be heard. By convention in some law reports, the appellant is named first.

The execution of Robert Tresilian, from Jean Froissart's Chroniques. Sir Robert Tresilian (died 1388) was a Cornish lawyer, and Chief Justice of the King's Bench between 1381 and 1387. He was born in Cornwall, and held land in Tresillian, near Truro. Tresilian was deeply involved in the struggles between King Richard II and the Lords Appellant, and was eventually executed for his loyalty to the king.

Lillian Schelew and her sons, Jeffrey, Michael, Bernard and Alan, owned a company named Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd which was in possession of an apartment building in Moncton, New Brunswick. The four sons owned eighty percent of Joyce, equally divided via two corporate entities, the respondent Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. The remaining twenty percent fell to the appellant, A.I. Enterprises Ltd.

In spite of Diocletian's attempts at reform, the provincial restructuring was far from clear, especially when citizens appealed the decisions of their governors. Proconsuls, for example, were often both judges of first instance and appeal, and the governors of some provinces took appellant cases from their neighbors. It soon became impossible to avoid taking some cases to the emperor for arbitration and judgment.Harries, 55.

He was later convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal against both conviction and sentence, the court held, that there was no merit in the appeal against conviction. At the time of the commission of the offence, however, the appellant had been acting under circumstances of severely diminished responsibility, which were relevant to sentencing.569d, 569h.

The Court heard arguments on November 15, 1972. Sheldon Elsen argued for Bronston, with Andrew Frey taking the federal government's side. Less than two months later, the Court issued its brief ruling, unanimously siding with the appellant. While he conceded that Bronston's answer may have been intended to mislead, Burger felt it would be going far beyond Congress's intent to apply the statute that broadly.

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with equality rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15). Arvay was the appellant for the Attorney General of British Columbia. The Court held that the Law Society's rule violated section 15 and it could not be saved under section 1.

2 of the Act of 1997 and of assault causing harm in s.3 of the Act are separate and distinct offenses and that it is not the case that s.2 is intended to define the concept of assault for all purposes of the Act. Furthermore, counsel for the appellant held that the European arrest warrant held insufficient detail to charge Mr. Dolny under s.

Anderson (1941). is regarded to be of great constitutional significance. The House of Lords found that there could be no inquiry into whether there were reasonable grounds for the detention of the appellant as it was a subjective matter for the Home Security to determine, as prescribed by legislation. However, in Lord Atkin's acclaimed dissenting judgment, he refused to endorse this construction of the law.

The Travis County District Attorney's office issued a statement that it would appeal the decision before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which it did. The all- Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to review the case and ruled, 8-1, to affirm the lower courts' dismissal on October 1, 2014.DeLay, Appellant v. Texas, Appellee (Opinion), No. 03-11-00087-CR, Tex.

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial purposes.

The Court held that removal of the appellant and her son to Lebanon would violate both EM and AF's Article 8 rights, and granted the appeal. This decision is significant, representing the first successful Article 8 claim in a foreign case.Stephanie Palmer and A. T. H Smith “Protecting the Right to Respect for Family Life in “Foreign” Cases” (2009) The Cambridge Law Journal 68(3) at 498.

In a precedent-setting decision, the Washington State Supreme Court found that the underwater forests belonged to the State of Washington (administered by the Department of Natural Resources). The decision rested on a determination that the Federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953 applied to the underwater forests and not just traditional seabed or lakebed natural resources (molluscs, minerals etc.) as argued by the appellant.

Charles Lee Buxton (October 14, 1904 – July 7, 1969) was an American gynecologist, professor at the Yale School of Medicine, and appellant in US Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. He best known as a birth control advocate and, along with Estelle Griswold, party to several legal cases that ultimately repealed Connecticut's Comstock laws and established a Constitutional right to privacy for married couples.

A female pedestrian (the plaintiff and appellant) was struck down by a motor vehicle driven by Chin (the defendant) while crossing a public highway. As a result, the plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries. The plaintiff then brought legal action, alleging that the defendant was negligent. The defendant denied the allegation and argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in crossing the road without due care.

Hobbs Victory worked to put out the flames, but a few hours later she exploded as she had 6,000 tons of ammunition in her hold. Clovis Victory also spent time at the Enewetak Atoll and Honolulu. with Arnold DeHeus on 6/3/2003 On September 20, 1946, she arrived at Manila with food from San Francisco.TAN LIAO, PLAINTIFF & APPELLANT, ~vs~ AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD.

The state subsequently dismissed all complaints on grounds including lack of evidence and misinterpretation by the appellant of the law. Whitmarsh was represented by C. A. Kelley and James Byrnes, while South Dakota was represented by Attorney General S. W. Clark and State Attorney O. S. Hagen. The question brought before the court was whether or not South Dakota's "crimes against nature" statute included fellatio.

917, 979 A.2d 493 (2009)] and that arguing that an evidentiary error denied the appellant a fair trial will not necessarily raise the error to constitutional dimensions. "[W]e observe that one does not change the true nature of an evidentiary claim merely by referring to it in constitutional terms." State v. Adams, 139 Conn.App. 540, 56 A.3d 747, 751 (2012), citing State v.

Thomas of Woodstock was the leader of the Lords Appellant, a group of powerful nobles whose ambition to wrest power from Thomas's nephew, King Richard II of England, culminated in a successful rebellion in 1388 that significantly weakened the king's power. Richard II managed to dispose of the Lords Appellant in 1397, and Thomas was imprisoned in Calais to await trial for treason. During that time he was murdered, probably by a group of men led by Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, and the knight Sir Nicholas Colfox, presumably on behalf of Richard II. This caused an outcry among the nobility of England that is considered by many to have added to Richard's unpopularity. Thomas was buried in Westminster Abbey, first in the Chapel of Saint Edmund and Saint Thomas in October 1397, and two years later reburied in the Chapel of Saint Edward the Confessor.

As the contract called for > performance by the appellant of its contractual obligations from the very > commencement of the voyage and continuously thereafter, the advance payment > should be regarded as the provision of consideration for each and every > substantial benefit expected under the contract. It would not be reasonable > to treat the appellant's right to retain the fare as conditional upon > complete performance when the appellant is under a liability to provide > substantial benefits to the respondent during the course of the voyage. > After all, the return of the respondent to Sydney at the end of the voyage, > though an important element in the performance of the appellant's > obligations, was but one of many elements. In order to illustrate the > magnitude of the step which the respondent asks the Court to take, it is > sufficient to pose two questions, putting to one side cl.

The appellant sought damages under s82 of the Trade Practices Act, referable to the commissions they would have been owed had the contract not been terminated. The primary judge found that damages should be assessed by reference to the presumed continuation of the agency agreement as automatically renewed every two years up to the date of trial The judge also held that as the respondent had engaged in misleading/deceptive conduct, the respondent could not be heard to complain it had a lawful alternative means of termination it elected not to take. On appeal the Full Federal Court considered that the primary judge's approach gave insufficient weight to the possibility of lawful termination. It concluded that despite the respondent's conduct; the agreement would have been lawfully terminated on 30 June 2008, dis-entitling the appellant to damages for lack of a causal link between the breach and the harm suffered.

Police installed a video camera without prior judicial authorization and monitored the activities in a hotel room registered to the appellant in the course of an investigation of a "floating" gaming house. They conducted a raid and found Mr. Wong to be in possession of profit lists. They seized gaming paraphernalia and a large sum of money. The trial judge acquitted Mr. Wong of keeping a common gaming house.

It was argued that the > Home Minister had taken a "casual and cavalier" approach to the detention, > and that because the allegations against the appellant had been unduly > vague, the Home Minister had acted in bad faith, thereby voiding the > detention. The court held that the detention was good, because it could not > assess the actions of the executive, applying the subjective test of > reasonableness as Liversidge had.Yatim, pp. 276-277.

Navistar Defense, L.L.C., Formerly Known As International Military & Government, L.L.C.; Navistar, Incorporated; Defiance Metal Products Company; Jerry Bell, Individually, Doing Business as Bell's Conversions, Incorporated, Doing Business As Bell's Custom Conversions; and Bell's Conversions, Incorporated, Doing Business As Bell's Custom Conversions, Defendants–Appellees. No. 12-10858 Fifth Circuit Decision the Sixth Circuit,United States Court Of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit Decision. May 12, 2006. Philip H. Sanderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

He convicted the appellant because he must have been aware, when he left the Union, of the act of insolvency which must have preceded his sequestration. His failure to attend the meeting, therefore, was due to his own fault in leaving the Union with knowledge of such act. The magistrate referred to R v Mahomed Abbas1916 CPD 178.1916 AD 233. and R v Mayer Brothers,6 HCG 130.

Dove- Wilson JP held on appeal for the Natal Provincial Division that the appellant did not know and could not have known of the date of the meeting until after it was held. In addition, it would have been physically impossible for him to attend even if he had known the date. There was, therefore, no ground for his conviction. In Rex v Korsten,(1927) 48 NPD 12.

This responsibility they embarked on with zeal, and "at what were, we may suspect, attractive prices". Exton, says Professor Charles Ross, was one of their biggest purchasers. He paid 500 marks for some de la Pole estates, (for example, the manor of Dedham, Essex in 1389) and 700 marks for a manor of Sir John Holt's. In May 1388 Exton loaned the Appellant-controlled government the large sum of £1,000.

Ernst Kantorowicz The King's Two Bodies A Study In Mediaeval political theology pp. 273-313 1956. Kantorowicz also refers to the Glossators who belonged to a well-known branch of legal schools in medieval Europe, experts in jurisprudence and law science, appeal of treason, The Lords Appellant and the commentaries of jurist Edmund PlowdenThe commentaries, or Reports of Edmund Plowden 1561 and his Plowden Reports.Duchy Of Lancaster (1561) 1 Plowden 212,213.

Grounds of appeal are confined to those stated in the proposal or objection. However, the Lands Tribunal may allow new facts to be raised at the hearing provided they fall within the stated grounds of the proposal or objection. The onus of proof is upon the appellant to show that the rateable value is incorrect. The decision of the Tribunal is final on issues of valuation and findings of fact.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard First National Bank of Boston et al. v. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, on November 9, 1977. Francis H. Fox presented the oral arguments on behalf the appellant, the First National Bank of Boston in representation of national banking associations and business corporations.Lexis Summary. 435 U.S. 765; 98 S. Ct. 1407; 55 L. Ed. 2d 707; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 83; 3 Media L. Rep. 2105.

As an extraordinary remedy the constitutional complaint is subsidiary to the regular remedies. This means two things. In the first place the appellant must have used every possible other remedy (also the remedy in case of infringement of the claim for hearing). This is why practically, constitutional complaints are mostly directed against judicial acts, not acts of the executive (which can still be contested at the administrative court).

In an appeal from a conviction of culpable homicide, it appeared that the appellant's brother had been struck by the deceased on the back with a hammer, and—he was then in a crouching position—that the next hammer blow might have landed on his head. The appellant had in this critical situation used the only weapon to hand: his revolver. He had fired at the deceased and killed him.

In 1998, the owners of the Barney & Friends children's television show on PBS sued Giannoulas for copyright and trademark infringement, over a sketch in which The Chicken engages in a slapstick dance contest against a Barney-like character. Giannoulas prevailed in the suit and recovered his attorneys' fees, based on the court's determination that his sketch was a legitimate parody, and therefore protected speech.LYONS PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in drawing an adverse inference from the fact that it did not produce its expert's report.Delrina II at para 58, Morden J.A. held that though an adverse inference was drawn, it was irrelevant to the trial judge's ultimate findings.Delrina II at para 67. The expert was asked for his opinion as to whether he thought Assess was copied from Sysview.

Appellant Commissioner of Internal Revenue sought review of a decision of the Tax Court which reversed appellant's finding that appellee taxpayers were entitled to periodic amortization of the value of a life estate acquired from a decedent. At issue is whether, and to what extent, taxpayers are entitled to periodic deductions for amortization of the value of a joint life estate which they acquired from the estate of a decedent.

The bill was passed on October 14, 1980. The United States had motioned the reorganization court six days prior to vacate its previous injunction, as the Staggers Act would render it moot. The day after the Staggers Act was passed, the reorganization court denied the motion to vacate. Pursuant to the newly enacted law, appellant and the United States appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

An appellant, Mr King appealed the decision of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 2000 . Justice Blow Alan Blow concluded that "No error of law on the part of the Tribunal", and dismissed the appeal . Mr King then lodged an appeal with the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where Chief Justice Underwood and Justices Slicer and Tennent unanimously dismissed his appeal .

Appellant then brought an action in the Ohio courts on behalf of the municipality, herself, and all others similarly situated, to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the Mayor to convene the Commission and to require the Commission and the Director of Law to enforce the fair housing ordinance and process her complaint thereunder with regard to her unsuccessful attempts to purchase a house through a real-estate agent.

Cameron held, on the evidence before him, that the Navy had established in most respects that its management of the appellant's employment was substantially fair. Only in one respect was it unfair: its decision to downgrade the appellant's post without first consulting with him.Paras 43, 53. The answer to the appellant's action lay in the navy's offer of an alternative post to the appellant immediately prior to his resignation.

In 1992, Brown was sentenced to a 27-month federal prison term and fined $10,000 for accessory after the fact to a conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. 3 and 241 (two of the hate crime laws in the United States), and for perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1623a.Justia.com. US Court of Appeals, Cases & Opinions. United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jonathan David Brown, Defendant-appellant.

Carter v. Burr, 113 U.S. 737 (1885), was a case regarding a promissory note that was held by the appellee which secured by mortgage of premises in the City of Washington, DC to the appellant, to decide whether other transactions regarding the property would pay this note, or if it would instead remain in force, along with the right to participate in the proceeds arising from a sale under the mortgage..

According to Bolingbroke, Mowbray had claimed that the two, as former Lords Appellant, were next in line for royal retribution. Mowbray vehemently denied these charges, as such a claim would have amounted to treason. A parliamentary committee decided that the two should settle the matter by battle, but at the last moment Richard exiled the two dukes instead: Mowbray for life, Bolingbroke for ten years.Harriss (2005), p. 482.

It was during this period that he undertook a civil rights case representing Fred Wallace, an African American law student at Harvard University who had been charged in Prince Edward County, Virginia, where he had been doing civil rights work, with multiple misdemeanors and a felony. Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee, v. Fred Wallace, Appellant. United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 357 F.2d 105 Argued Jan. 11, 1965.

His father was Edward III's fourth son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. His mother Blanche was the daughter of the nobleman Henry, Duke of Lancaster. John of Gaunt enjoyed a position of considerable influence during much of the reign of his own nephew, King Richard II. Henry was involved in the revolt of the Lords Appellant against Richard in 1388. He was later exiled by the king.

Only two of them,Ngcobo J, with Langa DCJ concurring. "surprisingly,"Schwikkard & Van der Merwe Evidence 312. found that it was unnecessary to determine whether the failure to disclose an alibi defence to the police could attract an adverse inference. On the facts of the case, the appellant had not exercised his right to silence and, after being duly warned, had responded to a question concerning his whereabouts.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was established by legislation in October 2003 and which replaced the Privy Council for future appeals, has continued to develop the presumption. Judgment was delivered on 3 March 2015 in the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Privy Council Appeal, Pora (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (New Zealand), judgment [2015] UKPC 9.

2, p. 162 In the political crisis of 1387, where the 2nd Earl's natural son Sir Thomas Mortimer worked with the powerful faction of the nobility called the Lords Appellant to defeat King Richard II, Brugge, who was described as being constantly "on the move", served as a useful go-between among the Appellants.Dunn p.162 Trim Cathedral, formerly St. Patrick's Church- Walter was appointed vicar of the church in 1381.

Officially the case was known as Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904. Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC. 1-187) dismissed.

Rothesay Heritage Preservation & Review Board et al., 2006 NBCA 61 paragraph 29(CANLII)) however, the appellant was ultimately unsuccessful due to a factual prerequisite issue. The Appeals Court consequently chose not to address the validity of the issue of an apprehension of bias. The first- instance decision is not binding on subsequent applicant's seeking review in the Federal Court and the matter remains open for exploration at this level.

The court referred to this condition as, This condition, known as "capable of repetition, yet evading review,"219 U.S. at 515. has allowed the court to take cases which it otherwise would be unable to decide upon, because the appellant would otherwise have no grounds to appeal. This issue has become important in a number of areas including First Amendment cases involving press coverage of trials,. and to statutes involving abortion..

In India, under section 2(j)(ii) of The Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is mandatorily 'required to provide the appellant "Certified copies of documents or records."' In such a case, the PIO is only certifying that copies of documents or records are true copies of those held on a 'X' page of a 'X' file of the Public Authority, irrespective of their original source.

All States have a post-conviction relief process. Similar to federal post-conviction relief, an appellant can petition the court to correct alleged fundamental errors that were not corrected on direct review. Typical claims might include ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence based on new evidence. These proceedings are normally separate from the direct appeal, however some states allow for collateral relief to be sought on direct appeal.

A "notice of appeal" is a form or document that in many cases is required to begin an appeal. The form is completed by the appellant or by the appellant's legal representative. The nature of this form can vary greatly from country to country and from court to court within a country. The specific rules of the legal system will dictate exactly how the appeal is officially begun.

R v Mercure was a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988, dealing with language rights in the province of Saskatchewan.R v Mercure, [1988] 1 SCR 234. The appellant demanded the right to a statutory provision in Saskatchewan governing a speeding ticket be expressed in French as well as the right to have a trial conducted in French. English and French are both considered official languages in Canada.

The Judicial Branch conducts appellant-level trial proceedings in the Supreme Court Chambers. The elected Governor and cabinet officials of the Administrative Branch are responsible for running the conventions, lobbying for or against bills, and holding press conferences. The Press Corps consists of a newspaper and media staff.Pennsylvania Youth & Government Middle-school students and high school students alike participate in the three branches (Legislative, Judicial, and Press Corps).

The scope of review refers generally to the right to have an issue raised on appeal. It entails whether an issue was preserved by or available to an appellant on appeal. Scope of review is to the appellate court what the burden of proof is to the trial court. For example, in the United States, a party can preserve an issue for appeal by raising an objection at trial.

Farmacias El Amal was best known for its Pasaporte a la Salud Loyalty Card and aggressive promotions including their Black Friday Sales. Its largest competitors were Walgreen Co., Kmart, and Walmart. On March 18, 2009, Farmacias El Amal filed a petition for Chapter 11 protection, with the case subsequently being converted to a Chapter 7 petition on May 20, 2010. NOREEN WISCOVITCH-RENTAS, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

Public Prosecutor (2002), a case dealing with a person driving a motor vehicle when he had been disqualified from doing so, Chief Justice Yong Pung How concluded that on the facts, sufficient notice of the disqualification had been given to the appellant. Even though the written notice was slightly different from what the Road Traffic ActRoad Traffic Act (Cap. 276, 1997 Rev. Ed.) (now the ), s. 42A(1)(d).

In 1990, Jean Balharry Garcia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking declarations that the various documents were of no force or effect, and void. The trial judge, Young J, applied the rule in Yerkey v Jones,. and granted a declaration that none of the guarantees which the appellant had given bound her.Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1993) 5 11,996 (7 April 1993), Supreme Court (NSW).

Appellant: Sydney Valentine Nossiter at nationalarchives.gov.uk, accessed 5 August 2016 Smythe was the manager of the Parr's Bank branch in Camden Town and like Valentine was a member of the Green Room Club.Rollinson (1996), p. 72 On 28 August 1901, at Chelsea, Valentine married secondly Lilian Eileen Clery, the only daughter of the late Surgeon- Major Carlton Clery, of the 18th Hussars."THEATRICAL GOSSIP" in The Era dated 7 September 1901.

The appeal was filed by the defendants in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 6, 2012, as Woollard v Gallagher (12-1437). Denis Gallagher is a member of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board and was a co-defendant at the District level. Terrence Sheridan remains a co-defendant/appellant. On August 2, 2012 the Fourth Circuit granted Maryland's motion for a stay pending the outcome of this appeal.

John Burley's origins are obscure, not least because his name was not uncommon. Burley is a toponymic surname signifying a meadow or clearing by a fortified place and is found fairly widely across the Midlands and the North of England.Hanks et al, p.101. He has been portrayed as a nephew of Simon de Burley, an influential courtier executed by the Merciless Parliament at the behest of the Lords Appellant.

Finding that the record clearly demonstrated that "there was no program or treatment appropriate for the appellant in the juvenile justice system", the court held that the juvenile court did not err in certifying Stanford for trial as an adult. The court also stated that Stanford's "age and the possibility that he might be rehabilitated were mitigating factors appropriately left to the consideration of the jury that tried him".

If the "appellee" did not appear he was outlawed; if he did he could plead various exemptions; and unless the court upheld them he was obliged to offer battle by throwing down his glove as gage. When an ordinary court ordered the battle, it was fought on foot with staves and leather shields; but when a court of chivalry' ordered it, on horse with spear and sword. If defeated, the appellee was liable to sentence of death by hanging, and an undecided fight still left him liable, though acquitted on the appeal, to trial by indictment; if the appellant yielded, the appellee was free. The right of "wager of battle" was claimed as late as 1818 by a man named Thornton, who had been acquitted at assizes of a charge of murdering a girl named Ashford; her brother brought an "appeal," and the judges upheld Thornton's claim, but the appellant then withdrew.

In S v Counter, an important case in South African criminal law, the appellant had shot the deceased, lodging a bullet in her buttock. Unbeknownst either to her or to her doctors, the bullet had penetrated her anal canal, causing virulent septicaemia and leading to the pneumonia from which she died two weeks later. It fell to the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa to decide whether it was the shot fired or rather medical negligence which had caused the death: > The sequence of events from the time of the deceased's admission [to > hospital] until her death was not interrupted by any causal factor which > affected or changed the natural order of events, more particularly there was > no intervention or omission by the persons responsible for her care [...]. > It is inconceivable in these circumstances that the appellant should not be > held responsible for the consequences of his actions, which led directly to > his wife's death by stages entirely predictable and in accordance with human > experience.

The Panel rejected Respondent's argument relating to the right of Member States to receive reports at their request as being immaterial in the circumstances since the report in question was not final. By permitting a draft Report to be released, it left a cloud of innuendo and suspicion surrounding Appellant who before he was left without standing vis-a-vis the Organization, had been a highly valued adviser to two Secretarys-General. After examining Appellant's pleas, the Panel concluded that were rather modest in view of the damage he suffered. In light of the above considerations, the Panel unanimously recommended that Appellant: (a) be issued a letter of apology from OIOS for having allowed Appellant's name to be tarnished and his reputation sullied by unproven accusations and; (b)be awarded compensatory damages in the amount of one year's net salary plus interest at the prevailing rate for the violations of his due process.

Mr Justice Keane also noted the "bewildering contradiction" between the statement of the appellant, in which it was stated that sexual intercourse continued with his sister until she was nineteen years of age, and the statement of the appellant's sister, in which it was stated that the alleged activity ceased when she was twelve years old. Emphasising the importance of a speedy trial, the court concluded: > I am satisfied that, in this case, the nature of the offences with which the > [appellant] is now charged coupled with the inordinate and wholly > unjustifiable delay in bringing them to trial renders this a case in which > the constitutional right of the applicant to a reasonably expeditious trial > outweighs any conceivable public interest there might be in the prosecution > of the alleged offences. The court allowed the appeal and substituted the High Court's order for an order prohibiting the DPP from proceeding with the prosecution.

In the first case, the appellate court simply examines the record and determines whether the lower court applied existing law correctly, and reverses and remands (sends the case back) for severe errors. That is, the parties may generally agree on the applicable law, but the appellant will contend that the trial court incorrectly interpreted and applied the existing law. In the second case, the appellate court rules on novel issues in a case, and under stare decisis, those rulings become new law in themselves. In those cases, the parties disagree vigorously if any existing legal rule even applies to the facts of the case, or the appellant may be deliberately trying to attack an established rule in the hope that the appellate court will overturn a prior decision and establish a new rule, or the question has been ruled upon by multiple intermediate appellate courts and is so perplexing that all the lower courts disagree with each other.

In that case, the appellant, who was under a sentence of life imprisonment, committed murder which attracted the mandatory death penalty under section 303 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.Indian Penal Code 1860 (No. 45 of 1860 ). Similar arguments to those in Woodson were canvassed, namely, that this provision of law deprived the Court of the chance to use its discretion and wisdom and ignored all factors pertaining to the gravity of the offence.

The rewards for the murder of Thomas of Woodstock were substantial. Six months after the overthrow of the other Lords Appellant with the murder of Thomas of Woodstock and execution of the Earl of Arundel, Thomas Mowbray was made first Duke of Norfolk and the first Hereditary Earl Marshall. Mowbray's grandmother, the Countess of Norfolk was made Duchess. John of Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby was made Duke of Hereford.

The Lords Appellant confront Richard II. In this Victorian illustration, Arundel is portrayed on the left, wearing his arms of a gold rampant lion on a red ground. Coronation of Henry IV. Seal of Owain Glyndŵr, proclaimed Prince of Wales at Corwen in 1400. Darras earned the approval of both Arundel and the king by serving repeatedly against the Welsh rebellion. Effigy of John Talbot, later Earl of Shrewsbury, in St Alkmund's Church, Whitchurch.

The respondent, a building and engineering company in need of bricks for certain walls of a building it was constructing, entered into a supply contract with the appellant. Shortly after construction was completed, Holmdene's bricks "were beginning to crumble and decompose,"675B. manifesting a condition known as "efflorescence," which threatened the stability of the entire edifice. The affected walls were perforce demolished, and Roberts sued for consequential damages arising from the breach of the contract.

The court held, further, that to allow the applications for the payment of interest would be effectively to vary the order of the court to the detriment of the appellant. In the absence of a cross-appeal, the court could not do this. Furthermore, because the Act had come into operation on July 16, 1976,—that is, after the judgment in the court a quo—the relevant provisions 3(2). was inapplicable.

Churchill then appealed Mihm's ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Koch, whom she married in 1991, joined the case as an appellant, arguing that Waters, Davis and Hopper had tried to have his privileges revoked as retaliation for his role in the incident. A three- judge panel of Richard Dickson Cudahy, John Louis Coffey and Daniel Anthony Manion heard the case in February 1992. Eight months later, they ruled in favor of Churchill.

There must be a positive obligation imposed by law, which with it must be absolutely physically impossible to comply, not merely difficult or inconvenient. In R v Jetha,(1929) 50 NLR 91. the appellant had sailed for India on 11 October 1926; his estate was provisionally sequestrated on 13 October 1926. In March 1929, after his return, he was convicted of contravening section 142(a) of the Insolvency Act,Act 32 of 1916.

The first appellant, Alban Fellows, had stored digital images on his employer's computer that enabled users to both display and print indecent pictures of children. These materials could also be accessed on the Internet, allowing others to view and duplicate these images. The extensive digital library, viewable on the Internet, encompassed numerous explicit images of children and was called The Archive. Only the users who were given a password by Fellows, could access the archive.

The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein. The central issue was the extent of the liability of the Minister of Police for wrongful acts committed by a policeman. In an appeal by the Minister of Police against an award of damages by the court a quo, it was contended that the sergeant's conduct had been unrelated to his police work.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another2001 (4) SA 189 (SCA). is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC (with H. van Eeden); PM Wulfsohn SC (with T. Ossin) appeared for the respondents.

To appeal a case from the GDC to the Circuit Court, a notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the GDC within 10 days after a judgment or conviction has been entered by the GDC. The appellant must then post a bond and pay a writ tax in the GDC within 30 days of the judgment, or within 10 days of the judgment if the case is one of unlawful detainer.

Santos Professional Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Igesund and Another2003 (5) SA 73 (C). is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Foxcroft J, Moosa J and Selikowitz J on 20 September 2002, with judgment delivered on 27 September. Counsel was the appellant was NM Arendse SC (with him Anton Katz); for the first respondent appeared SP Rosenberg and for the second MA Albertus SC.

The appellant, Kevin Fearon, and an accomplice robbed a jewelry merchant and fled in a black getaway vehicle. A police investigation resulted in Fearon's arrest that night. At the time of Fearon's arrest, police had not yet recovered the handgun Fearon used to commit the robbery or the jewelry he stole. Police conducted a pat-down search of Fearon incident to arrest and, discovering an unlocked, unencrypted cell phone on his person, searched the phone.

Born in Roanoke, Virginia, Agee was educated at Bridgewater College (Bachelor of Arts), the University of Virginia School of Law (Juris Doctor) and New York University School of Law (Master of Laws, Taxation). He has litigated cases in Virginia and federal courts, including arguing for the appellant before the Supreme Court of the United States in Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). From 1982 to 1994, he served in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC (with RB Engela); NJ Treurnicht SC (with AC Oosthuizen SC) appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

On August 28, 2007, Truscott was acquitted of the charges. Truscott's defence team had originally asked for a declaration of factual innocence, which would mean that Truscott would be declared innocent, and not merely unable to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Although they issued the acquittal, the court said it was not in a position to declare Truscott innocent of the crime. "The appellant has not demonstrated his factual innocence," the court wrote.

The appellant and respondent were the mother and father respectively of a child, referred to as "M" in court documents. They had become a couple in 1991, moving into a Sydney house in 1993 and marrying in 2000. M was born in 2002. In January 2007, the family moved to Mount Isa so that the father could take up a two-year graduate work experience position with a mining business, working as a mechanical engineer.

The appellant, Lewis, was sentenced to 12 month's imprisonment for an assault occasioning bodily harm. His sentence was to be served by a scheme in place at the time in the ACT, whereby he would be subject to periodic detention on weekends. He failed on four occasions to attend the periodic detention in the manner required. He was then notified by the Sentence Administration Board of an inquiry, which he did not attend.

A fifth Act (c.7) voided all "Annuities, Fees, Corodies, and all other Charges made or granted" by traitors after the date of the treason they were convicted of. A sixth Act (c.2) made it treason to set up any commission which was prejudicial to the king (this was in response to a commission of Lords Appellant which had been set up by Parliament in 1386, against Richard's will10 Ric 2 c.

Easton Transit Co. in 1916 where Wilson leadership sued the transit company for doing work without due consideration to the newly formed township's rights to give permission to do the work. Originally the newly found township lost this case but on appeal to the Supreme Court of PA on May 22, 1917 and Justice Walling ruled "The assignments of error are overruled and the decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.".

The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the non-renewal of the appellant's contract was due to performance issues. Specifically, it was claimed that the appellee did not begin his classes with prayer or attend mass with his students. The appellant argued that summary judgment would be appropriate because enforcement of labor statutes against religious organizations was unconstitional under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment.

However, the district expressly describes its constitutional challenge to §5 as being "in the alternative" to its statutory argument.See Brief for Appellant 64 ("[T]he Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, in the alternative, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district"). The district's counsel confirmed this at oral argument.See Tr. of Oral Arg.

Further details of the Bye Plot were revealed by the Catholic priest Francis Barnaby, in prison. He was another appellant contact of Bancroft, who communicated for him with Christopher Bagshaw, and had worked with the plotter William Clark against English Jesuits. The Court had moved to Wilton House, near Salisbury in Wiltshire. There it was decided that trials could conveniently be held at the bishop's palace in Winchester, not very far away.

Clopton had close connections with William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. On 31 January 1388, Clopton was appointed chief justice. This happened after the execution of Sir Robert Tresilian, who was charged with treason by the baronial faction known as the Lords Appellant. It then fell on Cloptonin what has become known as the Merciless Parliamentto pronounce death sentences on others of Richard II's closest advisers, including the King's former tutor Simon de Burley.

The Court of Appeal (') handles appeals from most lower courts. It is composed of 3 judges. The Court is divided into a number of divisions or courts: social security, business, general civil, and criminal. Formerly, it required the intervention of a solicitor or case attorney (avoué) to prepare and manage the case and to act as an intermediary between the barrister and the appellant or appellee; the functions of the avoué were abolished in 2012.

The claimant, Ms Quashie, worked as a lap dancer for 18 months at two clubs owned by the appellant. She paid a fee to work at the club, and was classed as an independent contractor in the club owner's handbook. Ms Quashie was paid directly by patrons, with prices set out by the club for various dance packages. She was paid in 'heavenly money', which was a type of voucher patrons bought from the club.

At the time of Pender's evasion, Scott Spitler had been a corrections officer at Rockville Correctional Facility for five years. The previous month, he had been placed in a pre-trial diversion program for a misdemeanor charge of battery. Although he was married and had children, he was also engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with Pender behind bars.Court of appeals of Indiana, No. 61A01-0903-CR-139 Scott A. SPITLER, Appellant-Defendant, v.

The court held that "there was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non- commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her" and that furthermore "the community standard of tolerance when all of the relevant circumstances are taken into account" was not exceeded. Although Jacob claimed she had a constitutional right, the court did not address this.

Brown v. United States, 113 U.S. 568 (1885), was an appeal from the Court of Claims regarding one James Brown, the intestate of the appellant, who was a boatswain in the United States Navy. The petition in this case was filed against the United States by the administratrix of his estate in the Court of Claims to recover a balance of pay which she alleged was due to Brown at his death.Brown v.

That meant that the existing criteria of foreseeability, directness, etcetera, should not be applied dogmatically, but in a flexible manner, so as to avoid a result which was so unfair or unjust that it was regarded as untenable.Paras 33-34. Each of the various criteria led to the conclusion that the loss suffered by the respondent was not too remote; furthermore, the conclusion that the appellant should be held liable was not untenable.Para 35.

The Supreme Court, through the majority opinion of Justice Nariman, upheld the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant. Justice Sanjeev Khanna dissented on the question of sentence and chose the lesser sentence of life imprisonment without remission. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna noted that the Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, July 1983 required two questions to be answered to determine if a case was rarest of rare.

He reiterated that the death sentence could be imposed only when the sentence for life is unquestionably foreclosed. In the facts of the case, Justice Khanna noted that the Appellant had confessed to the crime before a magistrate without compulsion and this, he stated, was the first step back into society and should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. He therefore opined that the appropriate punishment in this case would be life imprisonment without remission.

In Zamir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1980),. it was held that the statute in question did not fall into the "precedent fact" category, having regard to the discretionary nature of the power conferred on the public authority. The appellant Zamir, a Pakistani immigrant, was granted an entry certificate to enter the country on the basis that he was unmarried and intending to join his father, who had lived in England since 1962, as a dependent.

He ran for reelection in 1896 as an Independent and lost. In 1900, he declined the nomination for Vice President on the People's Party ticket. He served again in the United States House of Representatives for the state of New York from March 4, 1905, to March 3, 1907. In December 1915 he and Benjamin F. Spellman represented L. Lawrence Weber as the appellant before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Weber v.

The appeals process is the request for a formal change of a decision made by a court of law. The litigant who files the appeal is known as the "appellant." A successful appeal must demonstrate to a higher court that the trial court made a decision affected by legal error. The appellate procedure in the United States takes place in appellate court, and that court normally makes its judgment based only on the record of the original case.

The same month, he was also appointed Admiral of the Irish fleet, as well as Constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports.Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, The King's Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, 23. In May, his admiralty was extended to include the northern fleet. That summer, the new earl became one of the noblemen who helped Richard II free himself from the power of the Lords Appellant.

In 1999, the Second Circuit considered Lewis v. Cowen, a case in which the former director of the Connecticut Lottery claimed his dismissal for not speaking violated his First Amendment rights. The appellant was dismissed after refusing to prepare changes to the lottery he had privately expressed reservations about. Without any actual speech to apply the Pickering–Connick tests to, Judge John Walker held that behavior fell under Waters since it adversely affected the lottery's operations.

Whilst driving a motor-car on a public road, the appellant had sustained an epileptic seizure and lost control of the car, which collided with a pedestrian and with another car. He had been charged and convicted of reckless or negligent driving on a public road in contravention of section 31(1)(a) of the Transvaal Motor Ordinance.Ordinance 17 of 1931. His defence was that he was not responsible for his actions because of the seizure.

The appellant was convicted in a regional court on two counts of contravening section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.Act 1 of 1988. The prohibited acts which constituted the contraventions were murder (of one Batandwa Ndalase) and attempted murder (of one Sandasile Nxiki), respectively. Regarding the appropriate punishment, the magistrate applied the provision that a contravention of section 1(1) could attract the same penalty as that which might be imposed for the unlawful act itself.

In R v Cheong (2006) AER (D) 385 the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, section 9 of the 1861 Act applied 19 years after he returned to England and he was charged with murder. On appeal, a conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

In the sixteenth century, several alchemical works were attributed to Bernard. For example, Trevisanus de Chymico miraculo, quod lapidem philosophiae appellant was edited in 1583 by Gerard Dorn. The Answer of Bernardus Trevisanus, to the Epistle of Thomas of Bononia,Thomas of Bononia being described as physician to Charles VIII of France, king at the end of the fifteenth century. and The Prefatory Epistle of Bernard Earl of Tresne, in English, appeared in the 1680 Aurifontina Chymica.

Washington was executed on July 13, 1984, two months after the Supreme Court's decision. One of the important aspects of this decision was its relationship to United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), and the number of appeals "held" by the Court in abeyance for the decision. Justice O'Connor's ability to gain a majority in this decision prevented the antiquated "farce and mockery standard," a standard extremely difficult to achieve for an appellant, from making a return.

FitzAlan was one of the Lords Appellant who accused and condemned Richard II's favorites. He made himself particularly odious to the King by refusing, along with Gloucester, to spare the life of Sir Simon de Burley who had been condemned by the Merciless Parliament. This was even after the queen, Anne of Bohemia, went down on her knees before them to beg for mercy. King Richard never forgave this humiliation and planned and waited for his moment of revenge.

In S v Jackson,1963 (2) SA 626 (A). an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that a person is justified in killing in self-defence not only when he fears that his life is in danger but also when he fears grievous bodily harm. PE Linde appeared for the appellant and BG van der Walt, SC, Attorney-General OFS, for the State. The case was heard on March 8, 1963.

Himmler stated: "I also want to talk to you, > quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be > mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. ... I > mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race ..." > The appellant argued that the term "exterminate" used in this passage really > meant "deport". It was left to the jury to consider whether they accepted > that this was a possible interpretation.

In May 1965, Devlin is reported to have conceded defeat. The Street Offences Act 1959 prohibited England's prostitutes from soliciting in the streets. One Shaw published a booklet containing prostitutes' names and addresses; each woman listed had paid Shaw for her advertisement. A 1962 majority in the House of Lords not only found the appellant guilty of a statutory offence (living on the earnings of prostitution), but also of the "common law misdemeanour of conspiracy to corrupt public morals".

He studied at Reims (1590) and Rome (1593). As priest he was imprisoned at Wisbech Castle, and was active against the Jesuits, acting later for the Appellant Clergy in Rome (1602). Afterwards he was appointed president of Arras College near Paris, becoming doctor of theology and Fellow of the Sorbonne. He was vice-president of Douai College, from 1619 to 1625, and from 1628 till he returned to England, where he died some time after 1643.

Restraining orders (preventing the recipient from doing anything specified in the order) can be imposed upon acquitted defendants.The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, section 12 They are imposed if the court "considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant". The Court of Appeal in allowing an appeal against conviction may also remit the matter to the Crown Court to consider a restraining order in respect of the otherwise successful appellant.

In 1976, as an associate of the Winter Hill Gang of Boston, Martorano was convicted of loansharking, extortion and fixing horse races."United States of America, Appellee, v. James Martorano, Appellant", United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 557 F.2d 1, Argued Dec. 13, 1976"$100,000 BAIL IN RACE-FIX CASE" , The Boston Globe, December 14, 1979 Martorano was convicted due to information provided to federal authorities by fellow gang members, James Bulger and Stephen Flemmi.

Richard stalled the negotiations to gain time, as he was expecting de Vere to arrive from Cheshire with military reinforcements.Saul (1997), p. 187. The three peers then joined forces with Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, and Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottinghamthe group known to history as the Lords Appellant. On 20 December 1387 they intercepted de Vere at Radcot Bridge, where he and his forces were routed and he was obliged to flee the country.

The San Diego Sheriff department was formed in 1850, and since then it has served a diverse county consisting of many constituents with competing interests. San Diego Sheriff's department was a co-appellant in the very famous Supreme Court of the United States and Ninth Circuit cases Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), which held unconstitutional laws that allow law enforcement to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide identification; this continues to affect other departments nationwide.

Edward C. Eliot and William B. Sanders for appellant. The plaintiff contends that this condition was waived, and the general appearance of the defendants entered, when their counsel, at the hearing as to the sufficiency of the pleas to the jurisdiction, argued the merits of the case as disclosed by the bill. This is too harsh an interpretation of what occurred in the court below. There was no motion for the dismissal of the bill for want of equity.

It has been pointed out that, 'had Lord Upjohn been in favour of allowing the appeal, the application of the principle would have produced a disgruntled appellant whose victory had been snatched from under his nose: it may well be that such manifest injustice would have led to the case being reargued before a reconstituted court.'L. J. Blom-Cooper and Gavin Drewry, The Use of Full Courts in the Appellate Process, 34(4) MLR 364, 365-366.

"Quoted at 541G. Other authorities were also cited who advocate leniency in some cases for the elderly. As against all this, however, the court observed that in jail Zinn would be under constant medical supervision; furthermore, as the physician had conceded, there was a possibility that his release from his business problems might actually benefit his condition."It is to be noted in this connection that the appellant consulted his specialist physician for the first time in 1966, i.e.

The County Court hears criminal appeals from the Magistrates’ Court. These appeals are determined by judge alone. An appeal decision is generally final, except when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed and the Magistrates’ Court did not originally impose a sentence of imprisonment. In such a case, the appellant may then appeal to the Court of Appeal, so long as leave is granted. The County Court also hears appeals from the Criminal and Family Divisions of the Children’s Court.

Handbook of British Chronology p. 282 On the Lords Appellant rising against King Richard II in 1386, however, Neville was accused of treason and it was determined to imprison him for life in Rochester Castle. Neville fled, and Pope Urban VI, pitying his case, translated him to the Scottish see of St. Andrews on 30 April 1388. However, he never took possession of the see because the Scots acknowledged the Avignon papacy with their own candidate, Walter Trail.

Bloemfontein Municipality Appellant v Jacksons Limited Respondent1929 AD 266. is an important case in South African property law. Heard in the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein on March 15 and April 5, 1929, it established the principle that, where a third party has not taken reasonable steps to protect his property from the lessor's tacit hypothec, the courts will infer that the property was brought onto the leased premises with the implied knowledge and consent of that party.

Buxton LJ held the workers were "working" even when on call, because ‘the alternative that is apparently contended for by the appellant, that the employees are only working when they are actually dealing with phone calls with all the periods spent waiting for calls excluded, would, in my view effectively make a mockery of the whole system of the minimum wage.’[2002] EWCA Civ 494, [19] Buxton LJ's judgment read as follows. Peter Gibson LJ and Neuberger J agreed.

This is an Election petition where the Court was called upon to interpret Section 34 A (i) (ii) of Electoral Decree No 73 of 1977. The Appellant (I.e) Awolowo contested the declaration of the first Respondent as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the grounds that Section 34 A(i)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Decree had not been satisfied (i.e.) (winning one quarter of the votes in two thirds of all the states of the federation).

However, the court sided with the United States government on the position that the final determination of facts of the case (specifically, whether the appellant had relatives in the United States, and whether she would be able to support herself financially) was to be made by the immigration authorities. A number of precedents, including in domains unrelated to immigration, were cited, such as Martin v. Mott (deference to the President ordering militias into service),. Railroad Co. v.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA). is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC (with JA du Plessis) appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC (with I. Ellis) for the respondent.

From the 13th of August, the appellant was in custody in Ireland. The High Court judgement on this case was delivered on the 7th of May 2010 and on the 20th of May the High Court granted a 'certificate of leave to appeal' to the Supreme Court. Under section 16(12) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 the appellant must provide 'evidence capable of establishing substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 were he to be surrendered', and that, 'he will suffer treatment contrary to Article 3, or is it sufficient for him to show that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a real risk that he will suffer such treatment?'. The High Court Judge Peart J. stated in his judgement that Rettinger's evidence was insufficient and that: > [I]t is not known at this stage even which prison or other detention centre > the respondent may be required to spend time if surrendered.

Concurrences Geoghegan J commented that the case had highlighted " serious issues relating to the effectiveness and enforcement of the European arrest warrant" within the jurisdiction of Ireland and that he would: > Agree with counsel for the Appellant that where there is an ambiguity in > legislation as to whether the Oireachtas intended in a given instance > detention or freedom, there is a prima facie presumption in favour of an > interpretation involving freedom. But just because some particular aspect is > not expressly spelled out in an Act, it does not necessarily mean that there > is an ambiguity as far as interpretation is concerned. In view of the duty on the courts to interpret the Act in light of its whole context and subsections, Geoghegan J ultimately agreed with the High Court decision. Finally Fennelly J. concurring with the previous judges, stated that he did 'not believe that the Appellant can derive any right to be released at the end of the sixty-day period from either the Act of 2003 or from the Framework Decision.

In this case, Wessels concluded, the action of the police was justified in view of the fact that there was a statement in the docket by Van der Westhuizen which reasonably showed an attempt by respondent to break into the CNA, whilst the respondent had made a statement saying that he did not wish to say anything at that stage but that he would make his statement in court. In so far as the claim for malicious prosecution was concerned, Wessels cited for the elements of malicious prosecution the fifteenth volume of Joubert's The Law of South Africa381 and McKerron's The Law of Delict7th ed at 263. In so far as the position of the appellant was concerned in regard to the malicious prosecution, the respondent could not succeed against the appellant unless he proved that Van der Westhuizen had acted within the course and scope of his employment when he made the statement at the police station. What had already been submitted in regard to vicarious liability, Wessels argued, was therefore also applicable in this regard.

This practice, however, means that while such waivers may have legal force in one jurisdiction—in this case the United States—in the jurisdiction where a verdict is sought in the absence of jury trial (or indeed the presence of a defendant, or any legal representation in absentia) may well run directly counter to law in the jurisdiction—such as the United Kingdom—where the defendant resides, thus: The Judgment on Regina v Jones issued by the United Kingdom's Court of Appeal's (Criminal Division) states, (in part, in Item 55HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE REGINA v JONES (APPELLANT) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) 20th February 2002 UKHL5 ) ... the issue has to be determined by looking at the way in which the courts handled the problem under English criminal procedure and by deciding whether, in the result, the appellant can be said to have had a fair hearing.

Since all parties concerned were under the impression that the stipulation had been entered in the record, the defendant-appellant cannot be allowed to benefit from a purely technical error, if in fact there was error. Appellant next contends that (A) the hearing on the motion to suppress failed to establish that the informant's reliability was sufficient to warrant use of his 'tip'; (B) he contends that the failure to obtain an arrest warrant vitiates the arrest and subsequent seizure; and (C) he contends that a consent to search cannot be acquired during an illegal detention and that his consent was not shown to be voluntary and knowledgeable. As to appellant's first contention, the Judge at the suppression hearing found that the informant's reliability had been established by the testimony of Inspector Barbarick and that the reliability standards of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 had been met.

The appellant insisted on joining, and was arrested for obstruction. Divisional Court upheld the conviction, the restriction to 2 pickets was not unlawful and arbitrary. Lord Parker CJ, ‘a police officer charged with the duty of preserving the Queen’s peace must be left to take such steps as, on the evidence before him, he thinks are proper.’ Moss v McLachlan [1985] IRLR 76, defendants were stopped at a motorway exit, suspected of travelling to attend a picket at a colliery.

In > Malaysia, the case which established the subjective test of reasonableness > for executive actions was Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri. The > case, heard by the Federal Court in 1969, remains as binding precedent in > Malaysia. In the case, the appellant had been detained under the Internal > Security Act (ISA), but the statement of the Home Minister giving the > grounds for his detention provided only one reason, even though his > detention order had initially stated there were more.

The State was held to be delictually liable for the resultant damages. In Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security,2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA). the appellant was assaulted, raped and robbed by a known dangerous criminal who had escaped from police custody. The court held that the State was obliged to protect individuals by taking active steps to prevent violations of the constitutional right to freedom and security of the person: inter alia, by protecting everyone from violent crime.

In 1980, Starchild was linked by the St. Petersburg Times to Richard Kelly's involvement in the Abscam scandal through Starchild's relationship with Kelly's aide J.P. Maher III. According to Kelly, it was Maher who asked Starchild to handle a campaign mailing list through his firm Minerva Consulting Group Inc. In 1986, he was convicted of mail fraud, beginning his sentence on 25 September 1986.Adam Starchild, Appellant. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Appellee, 973 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1992). Justia.

The appellant commenced proceedings seeking to challenge the Minister for Justice and Equality's interpretation of Section 9(4) and/or to seek a declaration of the incompatibility of Section 9(4) with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Irish Constitution. The claim was dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. A further issue arose regarding mootness. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the 27th April 2016.

On the night of 8 October 2003, the appellant Kenneth Dundon went to the flat of Christopher Jacobs in Hoxton, North London. Dundon's wife Anne McCarthy was staying in the flat with Jacobs at this particular time. Dundon was armed with a knife and proceeded to stab Jacobs in the face and neck, causing him to choke to death on his own blood. McCarthy claims to have witnessed the murder and told police that it was her husband who harmed Jacobs.

The mere fact of making duplicate keys available to another (who happened to be the owner of the premises) did not always equate to the giving up of physical possession.Para 27. Accordingly, on the facts, the court decided that the appellant had not lost physical possession of the premises by delivering the duplicate keys to the respondent. He was, however, dispossessed when the respondent used the keys illicitly and against his consent to provide the new contractors with access to the premises.

The Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction but not whether the foreign state's guidelines are "substantive". In Evans v. Evans, the Connecticut Appellant Court indirectly addressed the issues and held that it would not disturb an order of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. The trial court held, among other factors, that it was not bound by the New York's guidelines, although it did consider them.

There was no evidence to the effect that a person employed as was Sergeant Van der Westhuizen had police duties any different from those of any other member of the Force. It would, furthermore, be for the appellant, said Beckerling, to show that the nature of the duties of Sergeant Van der Westhuizen were such that, when he arrested the respondent, he was not acting as a servant of the State.See Rabie v Minister of Police and Another at 791C-D.

The appellate courts that have adopted both Rapanos tests (the First and Eighth Circuits) have concluded that the Marks rule does not apply to Rapanos and that both tests are equally valid. The Supreme Court has denied petitions for writ of certiorari in six of the seven circuit court cases addressing the Rapanos split-decision question. (The Bailey appellant did not file a petition.) It is therefore unlikely that the Supreme Court will clarify this question in the near future.

In Mahoney v Kruschich Demolitions the plaintiff, Glogovic, was injured while working on the demolition of a power house for the respondent. While being treated for his injuries, his injuries were exacerbated by the negligent medical treatment of the appellant, Mahony. It was held that there was no novus actus as a result of medical treatment of injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence, unless such treatment is inexcusably bad or completely outside the bounds of what a reputable medical practitioner might prescribe.

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education2000 (4) SA 757 (CC). is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Constitutional Court, by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ, on 4 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 18 August. FG Richings SC (with him AM Achtzehn) appeared for the appellant, and MNS Sithole SC (with him BJ Pienaar) for the respondent.

Press Summary: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (Appellant) v EnergySolutions EU Ltd (now called ATK Energy EU Ltd) (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 34 on appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 1262, 11 April 2017 In February 2018 Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded that the NDA had "dramatically under- estimated" costs and "completely failed" in the procurement and management of the Magnox Ltd contract, which was one of the highest value contracts let by the government. An independent inquiry into the deal was set up.

Kristine D. Vasarajs, Defendant-appellant—908 F.2d 443—Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions. Cases.justia.com. Retrieved on 2010-09-02. Also, the law presumes the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the state must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per liberal laws followed in most of the democracies, until the government prosecutor proves the firm guilty with the limited resources available to her, the accused is considered to be innocent.

The appellant also submits that a plaintiff cannot pursue both a > claim for restitution of the consideration paid under a contract and a claim > for damages for breach of that contract. It seems that this argument was not > presented to, or considered by, the courts below. The merits of this > argument, which will be considered below, do not necessarily depend on the > availability of damages for disappointment and distress. That is but one > head of damages whose recoverability is in question.

In the course of the altercation between the crowd and the police, the latter attempted to stave off the attack by firing rubber bullets into the crowd. When the police ran out of rubber bullets, they started shooting into the ground near the crowd with sharp-point ammunition from their firearms. The appellant sued the respondent for damages sustained by her son in the above-mentioned shooting. The respondent raised the defence of justification in the form of self-defence, alternatively necessity.

Digital initially introduced the Type 550 Microtape Control and Type 555 Dual Microtape Transport as peripherals for the PDP-1 and PDP-4 computers, both 18-bit machines. DEC advertised the availability of these peripherals in March and May, 1963, and by November, planning was already underway to offer the product for the 12-bit PDP-5 and 36-bit PDP-6, even though this involved a change in recording format.Levin H. Campbell, Court ruling, Digital Equipment Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.

634 Armed with the legal ruling, Richard called the sheriffs of several counties to inform them they were to no longer answer to the Lords Appellant. Working with his ally Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland and Earl of Oxford, an army was raised in Chester and reinforced with royal retainers from East Anglia, the Midlands and eastern Wales. Although rumored to his enemies to be an army of 20,000, it contained no more than 4,000 men. De Vere was put in command.

Walter's cousin and ally, Baron John Devereux, was a member of the commission. The Lords Appellant led this movement and included Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester; Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel; Thomas de Beachamp, Earl of Warwick; and later Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby; and Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham. The Earl of Arundel was appointed admiral of the fleet on 10 December 1386, and Sir Walter Devereux served under Captain Sir Thomas Mortimer in his naval expedition.

The route had not been used by the bus-owner for some time during the 1985-1986 unrest, but the latter had started using that route again from September 22, 1986. It was not contended in the Provincial Division that the respondents' injuries had been "caused by" the driving of the bus as intended in section 8(1) of the Act, but the Court found that the injuries arose out of the driving of the bus and held the appellant liable.

Silver half penny of Richard II, York Museums Trust Richard gradually re-established royal authority in the months after the deliberations of the Merciless Parliament. The aggressive foreign policy of the Lords Appellant failed when their efforts to build a wide, anti-French coalition came to nothing, and the north of England fell victim to a Scottish incursion.Saul (1997), p. 199. Richard was now over twenty-one years old and could with confidence claim the right to govern in his own name.

Counsel was heard on 4, 7-9 February. Seven months previously, in the case of Hinton v Donaldson,Deazley, R. (2008), Commentary on: Hinton v. Donaldson (1773), in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, the Scots Court of Session had ruled that copyright did not exist in the common law of Scotland, so that Alexander Donaldson (an appellant in Donaldson v. Becket with his older brother, John) could lawfully publish Thomas Stackhouse's New History of the Holy Bible.

As in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Court ruled that when a refugee establishes a prima facie case that deportation may lead to torture, they are entitled to a higher degree of procedural protections than the Immigration Act stipulates.Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 In particular, the appellant has a right to know the full case against him, and to be given a full opportunity to respond in writing.

Walerga, 10–15 miles outside of Sacramento on May 15, 1942.Opening Brief for Appellant at 5, Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (No. 70), 1944 WL 42557. Endo and her family was later transferred to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center 300 miles north of Sacramento in Newell, CA at the Oregon border on June 19, 1942.Memorandum from War Relocation Authority, Office of the Solicitor, “Petition for writ of habeas corpus by Mitsuye Endo; important dates,” dated Aug.

The judiciary includes the Magistrate's Court and the Court of Courts. Once sentencing is announced there is a 10-day period to present an appeal to the Magistrate's Court. Upon acceptance of appeal the report is sent to the Court of Courts where the two parties are requested to return within a 15-day period. If the appellant or a legal representative makes no physical appearance before the court within the 15-day period then the appeal is declared void.

The appellant insisted on joining, and was arrested for obstruction. Divisional Court upheld the conviction, the restriction to 2 pickets was not unlawful and arbitrary. Lord Parker CJ, 'a police officer charged with the duty of preserving the Queen's peace must be left to take such steps as, on the evidence before him, he thinks are proper.' Moss v McLachlan [1985] IRLR 76, defendants were stopped at a motorway exit, suspected of travelling to attend a picket at a colliery.

In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

" "Each appellant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to Jimmy Farris' life," Bedrossian said. "The sentences in this case do not offend fundamental notions of human dignity and the penalties in this case should not be changed." On 29 January 2001 the California Court of Appeal ruled that "In order to warrant reversal, it must be determined that the alleged misconduct has prejudiced appellants’ right to a fair trial. In this case, the evidence against appellants was overwhelming.

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings in the state courts presented no constitutional question which appellant has standing to assert. No question is raised as to the applicability and constitutionality of the statutes in their application to the physician in respect to deprivation of liberty or property in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court does not speak to whether it has jurisdiction to enforce a law that prevents the use of contraceptives for the state of Connecticut.

The first mention of a manor house attached to the manor of Sutton was mentioned in 1315 on a site named Manor Hill, west of the parish church. During the 15th century, Sutton Coldfield underwent a process of change due in part to the turbulent ongoings with the Earls of Warwick and their possession of the manor house. In 1397, Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick, was punished by King Richard II for being a member of the Lords Appellant.

S v Zinn,1969 (2) SA 537 (A). an important case in South African criminal law, was heard in the Appellate Division by Steyn CJ, Ogilvie Thompson JA and Rumpff JA on March 21, 1969, with judgment handed down on March 31. H. Snitcher QC appeared for the appellant; for the state, AJ Lategan. The case is most often cited for its provision of a basic triad of sentencing considerations: the crime, the criminal and the interests of society.540G.

In this case, the Panel refused to adjourn the appellant's hearing which related to its takeover of Distillers Co plc, in undisclosed concert with a Swiss bank, for which the Court of Appeal held that less there was any real injustice caused by the Panel's procedure, it would take exceptional circumstances for the court to intervene (particularly in the event, as was the case, that the appellant had not made use of the appeals tribunal existing within the realms of the Panel).

Using the evidence she obtained, Giuliano was able to bring an appeal in her son's case brought before the courts. On October 14, 2010, arguments were heard requesting Giuca receive a new trial. The Appellant Division 2nd Department summarily denied a hearing request be held to review evidence of juror misconduct because there were no affidavits from Jason Allo admitting guilt. The request for a new hearing is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In S v Tandwa (2007), the seven appellants were convicted of a bank robbery and appealed this. The allegation was that it was an "inside job," as Tandwa was an employee of the bank. It looked like Tandwa was a victim, but he was actually working with the bank robbers. The first appellant also contended that his right to a fair trial had been violated in that his counsel had been incompetent, had given him bad advice, and had conducted himself obstructively.

He did not even protest, it seems, when his younger brother Thomas was murdered at Richard's behest. It may be that he felt he had to maintain this posture of loyalty to protect his son Henry Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV), who had also been one of the Lords Appellant, from Richard's wrath; but in 1398 Richard had Bolingbroke exiled, and on John of Gaunt's death the next year he disinherited Bolingbroke completely, seizing John's vast estates for the Crown.

She was called to the bar in 1897, becoming the first woman lawyer in Ontario and the British Empire. In 1953, the firm's name was changed to Blake, Cassels & Graydon.T.D. Regehr, "Élite Relationships, Partnership Arrangements, and Nepotism at Blakes, a Toronto law Firm, 1858–1942," in Essays in the History of Canadian Law, ed. Carol Wilton (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 207-247 In 1959, Blakes was counsel to the appellant in the case of Frankel Corp. Ltd. v.

The use of this concept in legal language can be traced to English cases in the nineteenth century. In Occleston v Fullalove (1873-74) L.R. 9 Ch. App. 147, a case heard in the Court of Appeal in Chancery it was argued for the Appellant that although the child in question was "en ventre sa mère" at the date of the will subject to the litigation, there was neither principle nor authority against such a child having a reputation of paternity.

It was not possible for third parties, even the liquidators, to take the bond and to correlate the descriptions with the assets on the premises. In the circumstances, the bond had failed to create a deemed pledge over the property of W CC, with the result that the appellant was not a secured creditor.Para 25. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the decision in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, in BOE Bank Ltd v Ikea Trading und Design AG, confirmed.

Legislators convicted as a result of Operation Boptrot included: #House Speaker Don Blandford (D) was convicted after a trial on charges of extortion, racketeering and lying. He was sentenced to 64 months in prison and was fined $10,000.Don Blandford Resigns House Seat; (Middlesboro) Daily News; May 4, 199333 F.3d 685: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Donald J. Blandford, Defendant-appellant #Buel Guy (D) aide to Don Blandford and former legislator pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

It is possible to get a copy of the notice of record for an appeal made to AAO by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to USCIS. However, this is not part of the appeal timeline, so an appellant cannot use delay in processing of the FOIA to explain delay in submitting any necessary documents. The FOIA can be made by anybody (not necessarily the petitioner or beneficiary); however, key identifying information, including the petitioner's and beneficiary's name, are often redacted.

An appeal from the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg (where Ntshangase J and Gorven AJ presided), it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), by Farlam JA, Van Heerden JA, Cachalia JA, Snyders JA and Majiedt JA, on February 17, 2012, with judgment handed down on March 27, 2012. Counsel for the appellant was KJ Kemp SC; AA Watt appeared for the state. The appellant's attorneys were Hulley & Associates Inc, Durban. The central question was of duplication of convictions.

Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Domenico Cefalu 1996 In 2005, Cefalù was named family underboss by street boss and former ally of John Gotti, Jackie D'Amico.National Legal and Policy Center, Gotti Ally D’Amico Becomes New Gambino Boss; Denies It, Too, 01/02/2006 One of his main responsibilities was overseeing the Sicilian faction of the Gambino family. On February 7, 2008, Cefalù was indicted on multiple charges of racketeering conspiracy and extortion as part of the Operation Old Bridge investigation of the Gambino family.

See S v Van Der Mescht 1962 (1) SA 521 (A).See S v Bernardus 1965 (3) SA 287 (A). GN Barrie, for the State, contended that, in order to hold the appellant liable for the death of the child, it was necessary to show that he at least had custody or control of the animal at the time of the attack on the child; there must have been some degree of culpa on his part.See Myburgh v J. and A. Jorgenson 1914 EDL 94, 93.

There was ample evidence on record, the State continued, to show that the appellant, as a reasonably prudent person, must have foreseen the possibility of an attack by the baboon; in fact, he did foresee the possibility.See Administrator, Cape v Preston 1961 (3) SA 572.Cape Town Municipality v Paine 1923 AD 217.It was clear to the State that the word "likelihood," as used in the last-mentioned case, should be understood to mean a possibility of harm against which a reasonable man would take precautions.

The majority judges concluded that the disclaimer clause in the brochure made it clear that the appellant was not assuming responsibility for the accuracy of the statement as to the dimensions of the property. The court referred to the case of Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners LtdHedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 where it was established that "the author of a statement could, in certain circumstances, be liable for financial loss caused by it to a person relying on it".

MacMenamin J and McKechnie J concluded that the appellant did owe the respondent a duty of care and that the appeal should be dismissed. MacMenamin J. focused on the substance of the disclaimer. He noted that if the disclaimer in the brochure had been clear and appropriate, then it would have been "sufficient to exonerate the firm from liability." However, he distinguished McCullagh, as the terms of the disclaimer in McCullagh “were crystal clear”, something that could not be said for the disclaimer in the appellant's brochure.

However, when this happened in August 1992 it was accepted that his marriage was at an end. He also provided in evidence that prior to her departure, the respondent suggested that the appellant should inquire about the possibility of obtaining a job with the Irish company in Ireland, but this was not in his interests. He visited his family at Christmas time and again at regular intervals. In 1994 he returned to Ireland permanently but maintained that his domicile was still that of the Netherlands.

He can withdraw the fine, lower the fine, or uphold the fine. If the (remaining) fine is higher than €70 and the suspect or/nor the prosecutor doesn't agree with the sub-district judge's verdict, the suspect or the prosecutor can go into appeal for the last time.Art. 14 section 1 Wahv He does that at the court of appeal of Arnhem- Leeuwarden in Leeuwarden.Art. 14 section 1 Wahv This appeal will be in writing, unless the appellant, per se, wants to do it orally.Art.

On 20 December the Lords Appellant inflicted a crushing defeat on the Court party at the Battle of Radcot Bridge in Oxfordshire. The consequent and abrupt shift of political power towards the rebels changed the position dramatically. Naturally, Exton authorised the opening of the city gates to the Lords—although only "once their victory [over the King] had become certain". Exton may have personally greeted the Lords outside the city gates (much as he had done with the King) and accompanied them into London.

In the Hong Kong case of Chang Hangkin the conviction was quashed because (b) was not present, whilst in the Gold Coast case In re Nunoo the conviction was upheld because both (a) and (b) were present. In the present case (a) is present but (b) is not and the conviction therefore cannot stand. The appeal is allowed and the order of committal is rescinded and the appellant is discharged.Deji Sasegbon: Sasegbon’s Laws of Nigeria (1st edition) An Encyclopedia of Nigerian Law and Practice 7 (Pt.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others1996 (2) SA 339 (A). is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of cession. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Joubert JA, Nestadt JA, Van den Heever JA, Olivier JA and Van Coller AJA on 19 September 1995, with judgment passed on 29 November. M. Tselentis SC (with him AC Thompson) was counsel for the appellant; MJD Wallis SC (with him LB Broster) appeared for the respondents.

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock [2006] ZASCA 1742007 (2) SA 83 (SCA). is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 4 September 2006, with judgment handed down on 29 September. The judges were Zulman JA, Farlam JA, Conradie JA, Mlambo JA and Maya JA. Counsel for the appellant was AR Sholto-Douglas SC (with him S Miller); RS van der Riet SC appeared for the respondent.

The appellant was over 20 years the senior of this > unsuspecting country girl. He was a man of experience and property. She was > a mere child. There was no blacker and more deadly treachery in the heart of > Judas Iscariot when he betrayed the Savior of mankind with a kiss, than > there is in the heart of the seducer, when in the sacred name of love he > violates the body and crushes the soul of his unfortunate and trusting > victim, merely to gratify his base animal passion.

Appellant: Martha Isabella Vokes. Respondent: Frederick Vokes - The National Archives Fred Vokes, for his part, largely denied all his wife's allegations of violence and adultery and counter-petitioned, admitting the adultery with Edith Appleby but claiming that his wife had condoned it. He in turn stated that his wife had committed adultery with a John Wynot, Ashley MacEvoy, a Mr Benson, Samuel Adams, Cyril Ponsonby and other persons known to him. Bella Vokes further denied ever condoning her husband's adulteries and denied ever committing adultery herself.

However, Lord Ellenborough indicated that Ashford could ask that Thornton be allowed "to go without a day", that is, be released without obligation to return to court. The matter was adjourned until 20 April for Ashford to consider his options, whether to allow Thornton's release or meet him in battle. On 20 April, Ashford's counsel indicated that he had no objection to Thornton's discharge, so long as no action would be taken against his client. With the appellant reassured on that point, the appeal was dismissed.

During World War II, the firm did work in the Middle East, including work reopening the port of Massawa in what is now Eritrea (See: Edward Ellsberg). Additionally, number of the firm's works at Fort Peck, Montana in support of the 1930s construction of the Fort Peck Dam are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The firm's percentage-of-completion method for accounting for ongoing projects was a matter of discussion in a Federal appeals court case: Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc., Appellant, v.

The trial court was vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation. The actions of the Comptroller under review, however, are perfectly consistent with his authorized statutory power, they did not violate any due process provisions of the Constitution and there is no indication that there has been any abuse of his discretionary authority. Consequently, for the reasons set forth herein and in the trial court's sound memorandum opinion, we believe the complaint of appellant was properly dismissed. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

The court held, further, as to the reliance on unfair competition, that no trade secrets were alleged. It was impossible to perceive what wrong the appellant relied upon, unless it was lamenting the fact that the first and second respondents wished to compete with it at some time in the future, and that it could not prevent this because of the lack of restraint-of-trade and copyright protection.Para 7. Interim orders and rules nisi, the court held, were not to be had simply for the asking.

In some systems, an appellate court will only consider the written decision of the lower court, together with any written evidence that was before that court and is relevant to the appeal. In other systems, the appellate court will normally consider the record of the lower court. In those cases the record will first be certified by the lower court. The appellant has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the appellee (or respondent) can present arguments against it.

Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah rejected the argument of the appellant, stating that although Article 4(1) declared that any unconstitutional law passed after independence would be void, this did not apply to the Constitution itself -- the Constitution could not be internally inconsistent. In his judgement, he stated that law made under ordinary legislative power, and law in the form of Constitutional amendments, were two different things, and as such constitutional amendments were not subject to the inconsistency clause of Article 4(1):Yatim, p. 124.

Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a ruling that a particular section of a Texas Penal Code did not apply to mothers with out-of-wedlock children. The case was argued on December 6, 1972 and decided on March 5, 1973.. Linda R. S., the petitioner and appellant, was the mother of the out of wedlock child. Richard D., the respondent and appellee, was the father of the out of wedlock child.

S v Salzwedel and Others,2000 (1) SA 786 (SCA). an important case in South African criminal law and criminal procedure, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 4 November 1999, with judgment handed down on 29 November. The judges were Mahomed CJ, Smalberger JA, Olivier JA, Melunsky AJA and Mpati AJA. GG Turner appeared for the appellant (the state); P. Myburgh, instructed by the Legal Aid Board, for the respondents, whose heads of argument were drawn up by JR Koekemoer.

Joanna "Jo" Stone-Nixon (born 4 October 1972 in London, England) is a retired javelin thrower, who represented Australia twice at the Summer Olympics, starting in 1996. She is best known for winning the silver medal at the 1997 World Championships in Athens, Greece. Stone was the appellant in an important High Court of Australia case on taxation law, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Stone (2005) 59 ATR 50. Stone-Nixon is now mother of two children, Ella Jane Nixon and James Edward Nixon.

When the fund had just been started, however, Central Hanover sent notice by mail of the future proceedings. Subsequent notice in its paper included only the name of the trust, the date of establishment and the estates in the trust. The names of beneficiaries were not included. Appellant Kenneth Mullane was appointed special guardian and attorney for those parties known or unknown who had any interest in the income of the fund, and James N. Vaughan was appointed to represent those parties with interest in the principal.

According to Michael Wood, current evidence suggests that Wuffa ruled the East Angles around 575.Wood, In Search of the Dark Ages, p. 62. Bede named Wuffa as the grandfather of Rædwald, "from whom the East Anglian kings are called Wuffingas",Bredehoft, Textual Histories, p. 31: "Uuffa, a quo reges Orientalium Anglorum Uuffingas appellant" but Bede's view that Wuffa was the first King of the East Angles is contradicted by the 9th-century Historia Brittonum, which instead apparently names a person called Guillem Guercha.

Richard nevertheless decidedonce he regained power in Mayto retain Clopton, who had been created knight banneret in April. In September 1397, the King decided to strike back at the Lords Appellant. Clopton presided when the Earl of Arundel, one of the King's main antagonists, was arraigned on a charge of treason, and executed. The next year he was asked for an opinion on a set of legal rulings that had been pronounced in 1387 on Richard's prompting, and that had contributed to the problems of that period.

Dollree Mapp (October 1923 – October 2014) was the appellant in the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961). She argued that her right to privacy in her home, the Fourth Amendment, was violated by police officers who entered her house with what she thought to be a fake search warrant. Mapp also argued that the Exclusionary Rule was violated due to the collection of the evidence that was found after the police had entered her house without a convincing search warrant according to Mapp's experience.

As the respondent gradually reduced the appellant's contact with B, she secretly made plans to move with B to Pakistan. This move took place on 3 February 2014 but the appellant did not find out until after she had made an application under the Children Act 1989 for shared residence or contact with B on 13 February 2014. This application was dependent on whether B was habitually resident on the day that the application was made and this was the issue before the court.

He was therefore among the five councillors charged with treason by the Lords Appellant on 14 November 1387, and, on the citizens refusing to rise for him, fled, but was captured (in Wales, says Jean Froissart) and imprisoned at Gloucester,Writ of 4 January 1388 in Thomas Rymer's Fœdera. until on 28 January 1388 he was moved to the Tower.Issue Rolls, 11 Richard II. The Merciless Parliament met on 3 February, and the five councillors were formally impeached by Gloucester and the Lords Appellant.Rolls of Parliament iii.

July 1, 1928."Extension of portable broadcasting stations licenses" (General Order No. 34, May 25, 1928), Radio Service Bulletin, May 31, 1928, page 9. The portable stations which had not found permanent sites were duly deleted by the fall of 1928, with one exception: KGIF, licensed to Robert B. Howell of Omaha, Nebraska, used in conjunction with his Senate campaign,"Transcript of Record" C. L. Carrell (Appellant) vs. The Federal Radio Commission, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, October Term, 1928, No. 4899, page 40.

32 round could not be loaded into Craig's revolver and Craig was the only armed person in the vicinity at the time of the murder, the spent .32 round could only be one of Fairfax's, fired some time subsequently. As the Court of Appeal found, 'Once the appellant [Bentley] had been taken down, D.C. Fairfax returned with a firearm, with which he had been issued, and went back up to the roof. He fired twice at Craig but missed, Craig having fired at him.

The respondent, initially the plaintiff, had sold and caused to be transferred certain fixed property to the first appellant, which had been the first defendant, and was a close corporation. The second appellant (the second defendant) was one of the members of the first defendant. The plaintiff instituted an action in a Local Division claiming re-transfer. The claim was upheld on the ground that the plaintiff had subsequently cancelled the sale. The agreement of sale, which was entered into in April 1991, provided for a purchase price of R120,000, payable as to R70,000 "on signature hereof," and as to the balance of R50,000 at a rate of R500 per month. Although the plaintiff's claim was initially based on an alleged misrepresentation by the second defendant, the plaintiff had, during the course of the trial, several times amended her particulars of claim, eventually claiming re-transfer only on the following bases: # that the first defendant had repudiated the contract by refusing to pay the amount of R70,000, and that the plaintiff had accepted such repudiation;Para 7.7 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim, as amended in terms of notice of motion dated May 6, 1993.

The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the trial court, is the one who wrote the novel Woes of the African Mother, which was first published in August 1982. This novel was then selected by the West African Examination Council as one of the prescribed texts for prose in the English Language paper for the academic years 2004 to 2006 for the Basic Education Certificate Examination for junior high schools in Ghana. The respondent, in his action, claimed that, following a meeting of the Directors of the Ghana Education Service on the literature component of the Basic School English Language examination, it was decided that Junior Secondary School I pupils should be examined for prose in, the respondent's novel. A recommendation was therefore made that 450,000 copies of respondent's novel at a unit cost of 20,000 Cedis be ordered. The appellant, the publisher of a work titled Gateway to English for Junior Secondary Schools Pupil’s Book 3 included, as Appendix 6, a summary of the respondent's novel which caused the respondent to be aggrieved as the act of the appellant caused him to lose a substantial amount of money.

Rumpff JA conceded in his judgment (Steyn CJ and Ogilvie Thompson JA concurring) that it was true that there was no evidence that many employees had been thrown out on to the streets because of the collapse of the company. If, however, it was realised that Beyers's remarks had been made, "in reply as it were," to the suggestion that those who suffered most were "loan sharks," the reference to "thousands of little men" must have been intended to "emphasise the potential damage that could be caused, by the type of fraud committed by the appellant, to employees of furniture manufacturers."540B-C. The reference to Zinn as a man, no longer young, who "spits blood from his bronchial tubes," was the only reference in Beyers's judgment on sentence to Zinn's age and malady. Having regard to the context in which the reference was made, Rumpff was "driven to the conclusion that the learned Judge-President considered the crimes committed to be of such magnitude that, if any weight were given to the personal circumstances of the appellant, business and industry in the whole of Cape Town would come to a disastrous end."540D-E.

On 2 October 1997, the appellant, Alison Redmond- Bate, and two other women, all members of an evangelistic Christian organization, were preaching outside Wakefield Cathedral. The police received complaints about them and a policeman warned the three women not to interrupt people walking by. They ignored him, and after twenty minutes, a crowd of more than a hundred people had gathered (most of which showed hostility towards the three women). The policeman once again asked the women to stop preaching, and when they refused to do so, they were arrested.

Swift (the appellant) was a company incorporated in Queensland which conducted a business in the meat and meat exporting trade in that state and elsewhere. The company owned a building in Maryborough where it conducted a number of operations including the killing and treatment of poultry. It was registered under the Commonwealth Commerce (Meat Export) Regulations made under the Customs Act 1901. It was registered as an establishment at which a long list of operations was allowed to take place, including the "Slaughtering, chilling, freezing and storage of poultry for export".

The appellant had been charged with and convicted of culpable homicide. It appeared that he was a partner in a partnership which owned and conducted a small shop, adjacent to which was a baboon, kept in a cage-like structure. Arriving at the shop one morning, he found the animal outside the cage. On inspection of the cage, he found that one of the lower horizontal planks at the back of the cage had apparently broken, thereby creating an opening through which the animal had easily made its exit.

Alito reviewed the law in question and major facts of the case in Section I of his ruling. In Section II, Alito next dealt with the Court's jurisdiction, which had to be established for a ruling to occur. The Court would have jurisdiction only if the appellant could show a personal interest in the controversy, and if an actual controversy existed (and was not moot). All parties agreed that Davis had standing, but the FEC had argued that since Davis' opponent had not yet filed any documents there was no controversy.

David Walsh (the plaintiff in the original trial and the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) was in search of a premises for his business management training. He got a call from an agent and was told there was a premises for sale. Mr Walsh went to the premises with his agent and also the training manager. He went back to the premises a few months later and met Mr O'Neill who worked for Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd (the defendant in the original trial and the appellant in the Supreme Court appeal) .

This was one of the grounds resulting in Wood's 2011 appeal being upheld. The identity of the second man supposedly sighted by Melbourne and Martin with Wood in Watsons Bay earlier in the day has remained unclear. With evidence contradicting the likelihood that the man was either of those whom the police considered in investigation (Byrne's modelling agent Adam Leigh or Rivkin associate Gary Redding) the Crown chose to pose speculation without evidence on either during the trial and drew criticism from the trial judge and later the appellant judges.

And, as the prosecutor has indicated, they seem to be on the > increase. It seems that the short terms of imprisonment which have been > imposed in the past have not acted as sufficient deterrent. Parliament has > set its face against this type of offence and has provided for the death > penalty to be imposed in appropriate cases. He found that, when the appellant committed the offence, he knew exactly what he was doing, but accepted in his favour that at the time he had been intoxicated to some extent.

The only way that could be done was by imposing an appropriate sentence, he said, and held that, under all the circumstances, a suspended sentence, as suggested by counsel for the appellant, would be inappropriate. The magistrate dealt with the appellant's previous record as follows: > You are by no means a first offender. Your first brush with the law was on > 27 April 1976, when you received five cuts following a conviction for theft. > Since then you have been convicted of various other offences and your > history shows a singular lack of discipline.

The five women then took the case on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for the British Empire. Since their names were listed on the appeal documents in alphabetical order, Henrietta Muir Edwards was listed as the first appellant, leading to the case being entered as Edwards v Canada (Attorney General).Reference to Meaning of Word "Persons" in Section 24 of British North America Act, 1867: Edwards v. A.G. of Canada, [1930 AC 124, [1929] UKPC 86.

In 1903, the appellant company had built, on a concrete foundation sunk four feet below surface level, a heavy steel structure for the purpose # of storing gas generated in a building some distance from it; and # of supplying such gas for consumption to the public. The gas holder was not affixed to the soil by any mechanical means; its affixation was entirely due to its sheer weight resting upon the concrete foundation. It appeared that the company intended using it as long as it continued to function efficiently.

Under Richard II, William resumed his position as a royal councillor. Although he took the side of the Lords Appellant in their disputes with the king in 1388, he also managed to maintain good relations with the king, and served as Chancellor again from May 1389 to September 1391. After years of supporting poor scholars at Oxford University, he founded New College, which was granted a royal charter in 1379. He also founded a grammar school, Winchester College, in Winchester, obtaining a papal bull in 1378 and a royal licence in 1382.

Gray, Jeff. "Canadian hockey hero Lanny McDonald heading shareholder fight", The Globe and Mail, Canada, 4 June 2014, Retrieved 17 August 2014 The case was dismissed, after the judge ruled it had no legal merit in April, 2015.McDonald v Brookfield Asset Management Inc, 2015 ABQB 281 On May 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and the Appeal Factum is due November 18, 2015. On November 23, 2015 the Appellant filed an Appeal from the Order of The Honourable Madam Justice Strekaf dated and filed April 30, 2015 in McDonald v.

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Mahdi and Another[2009] JOL 23207 (SCA). is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court Of Appeal (by Scott JA, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Jafta JA and Combrinck JA) on 28 August 2008, with judgment handed down on 3 March 2009. PM Kennedy SC appeared for the appellant. There was no appearance for the first respondent, while AE Franklin SC (with DL Wood) appeared for the second respondent and PJ Olsen SC (with AA Gabriel) for the amicus curiae.

A. Shacksonvis KC (with him A. Mendelow) appeared for the appellant, and A. Suzman KC (with him MJ Hart) for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Schwartz & Goldblatt; the respondent's were Podlashuc, Meintjes, Liebson & Klagsbrun. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Neser J. Its significance lies in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the court in application proceedings, where a material fact arises which cannot be resolved by viva voce evidence, may either direct the parties to trial or dismiss the application with costs.

The Crimes Act gave a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court where "That the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence". The appellant who had been convicted of sexual violation, appealed to the Court of Appeal who found against him. Mr Owen then appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal had blurred the lines between two distinct grounds for appeal in the section.

The Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities is a set of intelligence tests first developed in 1977 by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson.Mary E. Bonner Johnson, Appellant, v. Richard W. Woodcock, Appellee It was revised in 1989, again in 2001, and most recently in 2014; this last version is commonly referred to as the WJ IV. They may be administered to children from age two right up to the oldest adults (with norms utilizing individuals in their 90s). The previous edition WJ III was praised for covering "a wide variety of cognitive skills".

His support of the court party against the lords appellant was rewarded in 1397 by the earldom of Westmorland. cite Westmorland married as his second wife Joan Beaufort, half-sister of Henry of Lancaster, afterwards Henry IV, whom he joined on his landing in Yorkshire in 1399. He already held the castles of Brancepeth, Raby, Middleham and Sheriff Hutton when he received from Henry IV the honour and lordship of Richmond for life. The only rivals of the Nevilles in the north were the Percies, whose power was broken at Shrewsbury in 1403.

The appeal to the finding that the 2010 blanket ban was inconsistent with the section 12(a) of the Bill of Rights was dismissed on 26 May 2017 in Taylor v Attorney General NZCA 215. Additionally, the appellant was made to pay the second to fifth's respondents' costs for a complex appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements. On November 9, 2018 the Supreme Court of New Zealand also agreed with the High Court's decision in favour of Taylor in Taylor v Attorney General NZSC 104.

The respondent, Hircock, had sustained injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident negligently caused by an employee of Drifter's Adventure Tours, the appellant, while she had been a passenger on a tour arranged by Drifter's. She claimed damages. Drifter's declared that it was excluded from such liability on the basis of an indemnity form signed by Hircock before the tour. The front of the form had a wide indemnity clause and a statement that the conditions on the reverse had been read, fully understood and accepted.

The statute and regulations set forth the procedures for hearings, requirements for the presiding officers, requirements for communications between the decision-maker and persons interested in the matter, and other important issues. After a decision is made by an Administrative Judge, both the appellant and the agency have the right to a review by the NAD director, who then issues a final determination. The final determination of the NAD is reviewable and enforceable by the U.S. District Court in accordance with the judicial review provisions of the APA.

The instant appeal concerned the right of the court to order specific performance of a contract for personal services. Gordon Igesund, a football coach, had entered into a coaching contract with Santos, the appellant club. The contract provided that a breach by either of the parties would entitle the other either to cancel the contract and claim damages, or to claim specific performance. Before the expiry of his contract, Igesund was made a more lucrative offer by Ajax Cape Town, the second respondent, and proceeded to give Santos notice of termination.

Among the controversial cases heard by the Supreme Court was in 2008 when the validity of the death penalty was contested. The case was heard on appeal from the constitutional court. The main appellant was Susan Kigula who has since lost her appeal against her own death sentence for murdering her husband. Other cases include four of the last five presidential election petitions in which the court ruled 3:2 in 2001, 4:3 in 2006, 5:4 in 2011, and 9:0 in 2016 in favor of President Yoweri Museveni's re-election.

Viewed, in the alternative, through the constitutional standard, the constitutional guarantee of fair labour practices, Cameron found, continued to cover a non-LRA employee who resigned because of intolerable conduct by his employer, and to offer protection through the constitutionally-developed common law. If it was thus found that unfair conduct by the navy had forced the appellant to resign, he would be entitled to damages for dismissal.Para 9. Cameron determined that the mere fact that an employee had resigned because his work had become intolerable was not enough to make it a constructive dismissal.

Either the Crown or the accused may appeal against a sentence.Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 675 , 676 . An appellant must demonstrate that either the sentence imposed was "demonstrably unfit" or the court "erred in principle", for example by placing undue emphasis on a particular sentence principle. Except for an appeal against a finding that the accused is a dangerous or long-term offender, the court upon allowing an appeal must then determine a fit sentence and may not remit the matter back to the court of first instance.

In any event, nobody > is ambitious to overpower an aggressor armed with a lethal weapon. The court a quo also said it had "great difficulty in this case in holding that the accused could not get away and that he did not have a reasonable chance to get away if he wanted to." Van den Heever JA, responding to this, noted that the hall in which the murder had occurred > was packed and that movement therein was difficult. But the observation > places a risk upon the appellant that he was not obliged to bear.

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Section 1 at legislation.gov.uk The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill 2019-21 was introduced to parliament in January 2020 by the Conservative Government. The bill was a response to the Supreme Court case of Owens (Appellant) v Owens (Respondent), which stated in its concultion that Parliament may which to consider replacing the current divorce law. The bill would remove the requirement to provide evidence of fault, or separation; and replace it with a statement from either applicant that the marriage had irretrievably broken-down.

General Accident Insurance Co South Africa Ltd v Xhego and Others1992 (1) SA 580 (A). is an important case in the South African law of delict, particularly the area of compensation for motor vehicle accidents. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, by Joubert JA, Van Heerden JA, Smalberger JA, F H Grosskopf JA and Van Coller AJA, on November 18, 1991, with judgment handed down on November 29. The appellant, whose attorneys were Silberbauers, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein, was represented by BM Griesel.

Chapman v Hearse sought to answer whether or not Chapman (the appellant) owed a duty of care to Dr Cherry which would result in him being free from making contributions to Hearse (the respondent). The court needed to look at whether Chapman would have been liable in the same suit Hearse faced against the executor of Dr.Cherry's estate. This required considering whether Chapman owed Dr. Cherry a duty of care; whether the separate acts were too remote; and whether the events were reasonable foreseeability. The collision occurred on a highway in Adelaide.

The Court noted that the residents of these non-Gulf neighborhoods were freely allowed to use the company-owned streets and sidewalks to access the town's businesses and facilities. The appellant, Grace Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness, stood near the post office one day, where she began distributing religious literature. Marsh was warned that she needed a permit to do so, and that none would be issued to her. When she was asked to leave, she refused on the grounds that the company rules against distribution of such materials could not be constitutionally applied to her.

The appellant, Dr John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia Beer, a sum of £2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of £500 (£52,615.38 in 2012 adjusted for inflation) and pay £150 twice yearly until the whole amount was paid back. Foakes was in financial difficulty and, with the help of his solicitor, drew up an agreement for Beer to waive any interest on the amount owed. She signed.

The Family Law section of the State Bar of Michigan submitted an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court. In its amicus brief, the Section took the Appellant-father's position in each of the two issues it addressed in its brief. Further, the Section recommended that the Michigan Supreme Court reverse the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in which that lower court retained jurisdiction of the case even though the trial court in Monroe County, Michigan, failed to apply the UCCJEA in this child custody jurisdictional dispute.

The case arose when Alabama State College, a then- segregated black college, expelled six students, including the named appellant, St. John Dixon, for unspecified reasons, but presumably because of their participation in demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement. The college, acting in loco parentis, expelled them without a hearing. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which held that a public college could not expel students without at least minimal due process. The case was heard by a panel of John Minor Wisdom, Richard Rives, and Benjamin Franklin Cameron.

Central to this argument was that Esanda had suffered a loss which would not have occurred if not for reliance on Excel's audited accounts, which were prepared with a breach of standards. The Court held that there was no cause of action successfully pleaded by the Appellant and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Although this order was unanimous, there were four different judgments emanating from the Court to explain why. This case is generally seen as authority for the proposition that auditors do not owe a duty of care to third parties.

The same day they had convened to hear Sangret's appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, ruling there had been no evidence presented to attest to either trial misconduct or Sangret's innocence, adding they had further chosen to summarily dismiss the appeal due to "the abundance of evidence the appellant was the murderer of the girl", further stating there had been "no possible ground on which the verdict could be disturbed".Court of Criminal Appeal, Murder of a Girl: Appeal Dismissed. The Times 13 Apr 1943 p.2, col.

About half of them are involved in military training operations and half are involved in military public relations activities oriented towards the participants and visitors. Total Defense Department funding for these training and public relations activities averaged $8 million per jamboree. According to the government, "these funds were used to pay not only for services provided in support of the event itself, but also for the costs of transporting and billeting the population of soldiers brought to Fort A.P. Hill to perform services during the event."DOJ appellant brief in Winkler v.

A party who files an appeal is called an "appellant", "plaintiff in error", "petitioner" or "pursuer", and a party on the other side is called an "appellee". A "cross- appeal" is an appeal brought by the respondent. For example, suppose at trial the judge found for the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay $50,000. If the defendant files an appeal arguing that he should not have to pay any money, then the plaintiff might file a cross-appeal arguing that the defendant should have to pay $200,000 instead of $50,000.

The prosecution called two medical practitioners to examine the complainant. The first found that the complainant's hymen was intact, and found this to be inconsistent with a rape by forced vaginal penetration. The second medical practitioner found there was no evidence 'one way or the other' of physical penetration. In cross-examination it became an issue that the complainant's account of the rape on Saturday 8 September 1990, included sitting and watching television with the appellant; as the complainant had claimed to have been watching a western movie.

Lower courts had denied him this right, so he sought appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the appellant died before the Supreme Court could hear his appeal. The Court exercised its discretion to hear the appeal notwithstanding its mootness because the case not only raised an important legal issue but satisfied the other criteria for the hearing of a moot appeal, including the continued existence of a proper adversarial context. The Supreme Court ruled that language rights enjoyed an almost constitutional status and could only be repealed by a 'clear legislative pronouncement'.

In this case, as the victim had believed that the violence could occur at any time, the judge was entitled to leave the question of whether or not the victim had a fear of immediate violence to the jury. The Court of Appeal also held that it is for the Crown (the Prosecution) to prove that fear was in the victim's mind and that it is irrelevant how it got there and that certain conduct accompanying words could make that an assault. Therefore, the appellant had committed assault.

The High Court also tries the most serious criminal and civil cases, and hears certain appeals from lower courts. When the high court sits as a criminal court it is called the Central Criminal Court and sits with a jury. The Court of Appeal is the newest of the superior courts having been established in 2014. It took over the former appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (in civil appeals from the High Court), and the jurisdiction of the former Court of Criminal Appeal (in criminal appeals from the High Court and the Circuit Court).

The case concerned a rent assessment committee that suggested a lower rate of rent than what had been suggested by an expert, and even lower than the residents had expected. The landlords appealed against this decision under section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, on the basis that a member of the committee, Mr Lannon, was biased. They argued that Mr Lannon made the decision to assist his father, who was negotiating his rent with one of the appellant landlords. On this basis, they believed the decision ought to be quashed.

He was made Commissioner of Survey to Devon and Cornwall in 1388, and again by Lords Appellant to the two counties in October 1397. In 1395 he was elected as MP for Devon and again in September 1397. At the height of the Crisis, King Richard II betrayed his uncle, Earl of Arundel, and as a consequence he lost his main supporters. After the usurpation by King Henry IV Hugh was made Commissioner of Array for Devon in December 1399 - responsible for raising troops and bringing the south-west to the Lancastrian cause.

Lord Cottenham LC The case came initially before the Vice- Chancellor, Sir James Wigram, who ordered an account. That decision was appealed to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, who reversed the decision. The matter was then appealed to the House of Lords where, unusually, Lord Lyndhurst sat on the appeal against his own decision (although by this time he had been replaced by Lord Cottenham as Lord Chancellor). After hearing counsel for the appellant Foley, their Lordships told counsel for the bank that they did not need to address them and promptly dismissed the appeal.

" This determination resulted in the Civil Appeals Court overturning the District Court verdict, which was directed to retry the case with the formerly missing evidence. The appeals verdict also noted that, "...any person denied access to a public record and who successfully brings a civil action for declarative or injunctive relief is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Fabian, 2004 OK 67 at ¶ 19, 100 P.3d at 707." The appellate court further ordered the District Court to determine the "reasonable attorney's fees to which the appellant is entitled.

The House of Lords allowed that the appellant and his partner did constitute a family for legal purposes. The Lords decision agreed that there was not a spousal relationship (which they interpreted to mean a heterosexual marriage), nor were they "living together as a husband or wife" (which they interpreted as providing protection only for unmarried heterosexual couples), but stated that a long-term same-sex relationship could be considered a family even without the ties of blood or marriage. The decision was welcomed by gay rights campaigners including the campaign group Stonewall.

At his trial, Follett moved for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence, claiming that the ordinance restricted freedom of worship in violation of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the States. The motion was overruled and appellant was found guilty by the jury in the Mayor's Court. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recognized the principles established in Jones v.

Moses joined the Washington, D.C., law firm of Covington & Burling practicing in the areas of litigation, corporate and securities matters, and arbitration. He represented clients in important litigation as trial and appellant counsel and has structured major corporate, financial and real estate transactions in this country and abroad. Except for his public service, he has remained with Covington & Burling. He also serves as chief strategy officer of Promontory Financial Group, a global financial services consulting firm, and is vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, a fintech company based in Arlington, Virginia.

John Ipstones (died 1394) was an English soldier, politician and landowner. He fought in the Hundred Years War and in John of Gaunt's expedition to win the Crown of Castile. He represented Staffordshire twice in the House of Commons of England, including the Merciless Parliament of 1388, in which he supported the measures of the Lords Appellant. A member of a notoriously quarrelsome and violent landed gentry family, he pursued numerous property and personal disputes, one of which led to his murder while in London, serving as a Member of Parliament.

In S v Pakane & Others (2007), an important case in South African criminal procedure, the three appellants, all police officers, appeared on charges relating to the death of one F, who had been shot twice, once at sufficiently close range as to leave a contact wound. The second appellant, a sergeant, was convicted of murder and of defeating the ends of justice and sentenced. The first and third appellants, both constables, were convicted of being accessories after the fact to murder, and were each sentenced. All three appealed.

Accepting that the appellant had not been defended properly, the question was whether it had amounted to a fatal irregularity which vitiated the proceedings. The court held the right of an accused person to be properly defended is inextricably linked to the accused's rights to a fair trial and to legal representation. The court held that the attorney clearly failed to appreciate the import of the evidence and the effect it might have had on the complainant's version and other evidence. Therefore the conviction was set aside and the matter remitted to another magistrate.

The next year, Blakes was part of Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada 1 S.C.R. 914. The firm won the case for the appellant as it was determined that section B.02.130 to B.02.135 of the Food and Drug Regulations are invalid and that Sections 6 and 25(1)(c) of the Food and Drugs Act are ultra vires Parliament in so far as they relate to malt liquors. In 1985, the firm opened an office in Calgary, where it became an adviser to the energy sector.

Guy DeMarco was employed by Holy Cross High School (Queens) as a math instructor starting in 1985. Although he was a lay instructor, he also led the class in morning prayer and took the students to mass. Under the terms of his contract of employment, his employment was to last five years with the option to extend that employment in five-year increments at the discretion of the employer. Upon completing his first five-year term of service, appellant was advised that a contract renewal would not be offered to him.

The Brehon laws were originally composed in poetic verse to aid memorisation. Brehons were liable for damages if their rulings were incorrect, illegal or unjust. When one brehon had adjudicated on a matter submitted to him, there could be no appeal to another brehon of the same rank; but there might be an appeal to a higher court, provided the appellant gave security. The ranking of a brithem was based on his skill, and on whether he knew all three components of law: traditional law, poetry, and (added later) canon law.

Once the claim has been filed by the appellant, it will be transferred to the defendants, who will also have a period of 20 days to respond. Both the demand and the answer must respect a structure with the proper separation of the facts, the grounds of Law and the claims that are deduced. When there is disagreement about the facts and these have significance for the resolution of the lawsuit, the process will be tested. The evidence can be given at the request of a party or ex officio by the court.

This recognises the insights which judges with current trial experience bring to criminal appeals. Counsel for the appellant or respondent may request a direction that a particular appeal be instead allocated to a Permanent Court or a Full Court. Longer civil appeals or areas that raise legal issues of public significance will usually be allocated to a Permanent Court. Appeals from decisions of associate judges of the High Court and shorter civil appeals that raise mainly factual issues, usually will be allocated to a Divisional Court unless the president otherwise directs.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing on behalf of a 6-3 court, rejected both of Wyeth's arguments. In other words, the Vermont law was not preempted (or overruled) by FDA regulations; thus, the plaintiff could argue her case before a state court jury. In 2019, the issue was revisited in Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht. The Supreme Court found in that case that the appellant had demonstrated sufficient evidence to prove that the FDA had considered and rejected, and thus preempted, an addition to a warning label for Fosamax.

In a trial at Nottingham Crown Court the judge, Dobbs J, directed the jury as follows: "the appellant (Jogee) [is] guilty of murder if he participated in the attack on the deceased, by encouraging Hirsi, and realised when doing so that Hirsi might use the kitchen knife to stab the deceased with intent to cause him really serious harm".[2016 UKSC 8]. Paragraph [104]. This direction accorded with the standard interpretation of the law regarding joint enterprise in the light of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168.

On December 21, 2006, the city of Redmond approved a land use permit request that was filed by St. Jude Church on November 14 to host Tent City 4 starting February 11 subject to twelve conditions. The move would represent the first time Tent City 4 has been to Redmond. Ten appeals where filed by parties of record by the deadline January 5 including one from St Jude's & SHARE/WHEEL. Four of which were summarily dismissed, three prior to the appeal hearing and one at the hearing when the appellant failed to appear.

The appellant had been convicted in a Provincial Division of, inter alia, murder committed during a robbery, and were sentenced to death. The deceased was a bank teller and was shot between the shoulder blades during the robbery by one of the appellants. The deceased did not die immediately but only some six months later. On appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that, although the shooting of the deceased was a cause of the deceased's death, it was not a legal cause of his death.

2011 JRC 168, paras 29–30 The court rejected Syvret's submissions that disclosure of the nurses' names was justified as being in the public interest.2011 JRC 168, para 46 The court added that "The public interest is served by measured, responsible and accurate reporting. The way that the appellant dealt with the information that he had was none of these".2011 JRC 168, para 44 The court dismissed Syvret's appeal on the data protection offences but allowed his appeal in relation to two counts of contempt of court.

He declined the offer. Quote: "the appellant was unrepresented through his own choice. He had, as I say, been given exactly the same opportunity of legal representation as any resident of this Island would have had had they been unable to pay for legal representation themselves" The data protection charge was brought under Article 55 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, which creates the offence of disclosing personal data but permits disclosure where it is "necessary for the purposing preventing crime" or is "justified as being in the public interest".

Provident Institution for Savings v. Mayor of Jersey City, 113 U.S. 506 (1885), was a bill in equity filed in the Court of Chancery of New Jersey by the appellant, to foreclose two mortgages given to it on a certain lot in Jersey City, New Jersey by Michael Nugent and wife, and another person.Provident Institution for Sav. v. Mayor of Jersey City, . The first mortgage was dated January 19, 1863, to secure the payment of $900 and interest, and the second, dated July 13, 1869, to secure the payment of $700 and interest.

The respondent, Johan Heinrich Arnold, had signed an agreement of sale for a motor vehicle which provided that "no warranty whatsoever has been or is given to me by the seller or his agent(s)." The agreement had been drawn up by the appellant, Gideon Andries van der Westhuizen, the seller. Arnold had been aware when he purchased the vehicle that it was in need of repair. The discussions between Arnold and Van der Westhuizen, prior to the conclusion of the contract, had related to the condition of the vehicle.

Louis Whitmarsh, the appellant, was charged by the Beadle County Circuit Court for assault on a 6-year-old boy, whom he "willingly, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted" with intent to force oral sex upon, under violation of South Dakota Penal Code § 351. Lyman T. Boucher was the judge presiding over this case. On February 1, 1909, the court found Whitmarsh guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Whitmarsh submitted an appeal and requested a retrial, but he was denied and subsequently filed several complaints against the court.

On 10 September 2019, Campbell successfully appealed his sentence, reducing the minimum term from 27 years to 24 years; meaning he will be eligible to apply for parole when he is 40.Alesha MacPhail killer has sentence cut by three years, BBC News, 10 September 2019 Three judges ruled that the original sentence had been excessive for his age, but they did not dispute Lord Matthews' suggestion that the appellant may never be released. Campbell is imprisoned at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont, and will be moved to an adult prison when he turns 21.

He was represented by Patrick Harrington (the General Secretary of Solidarity – The Union for British Workers, acting in a personal capacity) at the appeal and Mr James Goudie QC acted for the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. The appeal was heard on 21 January 2010 and the decision announced on 18 February 2010. At the hearing, Harrington made a number of submissions on behalf of the appellant. Two cases were cited:- Mullaney –v- The Adjudication Panel for England [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin) and Livingstone -v- The Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin).

In the spring of 1597, the troubles of the English College, Rome, spread to England, and led to a renewal of the "Wisbech stirs", which were soon overshadowed by the Appellant controversy. Weston took no part in this, as he was committed, early in 1599, to the Tower of London, where he almost lost his sight. In 1603, he was sent into exile and spent the rest of his days in the English seminaries at Seville and Valladolid. He was rector of the latter college at the time of his death.

While the Supreme Court agreed with the order made by the High Court judge that the case be transferred to the non-jury list, MacMenamin J also noted a residual concern that "justice be seen to be done".Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton [2016] IESC 16, [44]. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside only the part of the High Court judgement and order where costs had been awarded against the appellant in the appellant's absence.Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton [2016] IESC 16, [44].

The case of Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions, 2007 was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellant, Barbara Tucker, was convicted under Section 132 (1)(c) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA), of being within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, and carrying on unauthorised demonstration by herself in a public place in a designated area, namely Parliament Square. Her defence was that Haw had invited her to join him in his demonstration. He gave evidence on her behalf to that effect.

He submitted that the decisions after Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen Tuong Van were reflective of the Privy Council's changing attitude toward the mandatory death penalty specifically, but did not reflect any international consensus that the mandatory death penalty is prohibited by the rules of customary international law. This was evident from the fact that there are still 31 states worldwide which continue to impose the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences as well as other serious crimes. Thus, the international consensus needed to establish the principle contended for by the appellant was lacking.Yong Vui Kong (substantive appeal), p.

In this case, counsel for the appellant argued that "qualified privilege attaches to defamatory publications concerning public officials (or candidates for a public office) relating to their official conduct or the performance of their public duties by those who have an honest and legitimate interest in the matter to those who have a corresponding and legitimate interest (whether as electors or as citizens potentially affected by the conduct of public officials)".Jeyaretnam, p. 810, para. 44. The fact that the statements were made in a political rally during the run-up to elections meant that the requirement of a legitimate interest was met.

His detention was found to be lawful by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. Before the House of Lords, one of the legal issues that arose was the basis for judicial review of the conclusion of the Home Secretary or the immigration officer that the appellant's leave to enter the UK was vitiated by deception.Zamir, pp. 945–947. Counsel for the appellant argued that this was not a case of a decision reviewable on ordinary administrative law grounds, but rather a case where the exercise of the power depended "upon the precedent establishment of an objective fact".

Instead, they proceeded in blatant disregard for Mr. Wong's Charter rights. Their conduct was deliberate and was not based on a reasonable, or indeed any, misunderstanding of the law. The admission of this evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the nature of the evidence, the gravity of the Charter infringement and the fact the offence with which the appellant was charged did not fall into the more serious category. To extend the principle in Duarte to this case is to ignore completely the words "having regard to all the circumstances" in s.

After the foundation of the Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF) by Nicolas V. Zamora, a second major split occurred in the Methodist Church on March 23, 1933. About three years before, Melecio de Armas, a prominent minister had been accused by his colleagues of immorality towards a teenage girl, a church member.Heroic church - Manila Bulletin by Pres. Fidel Ramos At the 1932 Philippine Annual Conference, a committee found the minister guilty and recommended his expulsion from the ministry, but the minister appealed the decision to the Appellant Committee of the General Conference of the Methodist Church of Phlippines (GCMCA).

In a rare judgement, the Supreme Court acquitted a death row victim who was found guilty and sentenced to death by a trial court and the High Court saying the prosecution had not proved the charge against him of murdering his wife and five daughters on the basis of evidence on record. "In our view, the circumstances mentioned do not form a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant, nor do the circumstances exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused," the court said.

Moreover, thanks to the success achieved in Spain, Sangre y Arena exerted a significant influence on the Spanish cinema in the immediate years, and stood at the origins and then used as appellant españolada genre. It was the only time that Blasco Ibáñez himself reflected in images the design of his own work. It remains a tape from the Czech Film Archive, a version with 800 meters of length less than the original film. This version was restored by the Valencia Film Archive and Prague, includes a changed final, where the parallels between bullfighting and bandits are reinforced.

The Lords took a "ruthlessly pragmatic" approach towards Exton, probably due to the fact that he was still—just— in office. Their lack of action against him may also have been the result of a deal which saw them protect Exton in return for his abandonment of Brembre. For his part, the rumour that he "sought the derogation and annulment" of London's liberties was probably sufficiently grave for Exton to seek the protection of the Appellant Lords. Indeed, he probably had good reason to fear that his previous good relations with the King could yet be enough to turn the rebels against him.

For this work, he was paid £20 in wages, as well as a further £46 for his expenses. Further, he was also able to avail himself of free boat usage on the River Thames. In October 1386, Brembre came to the end of his three terms of office, and Exton was elected in his stead. Just before Exton was elected (by possibly a matter of a few days), Brembre had visited the King at Eynsham Abbey, where he may have encouraged Richard to expect and rely on London's support in the King's on- going struggle against the Lords Appellant.

Fellows selected to whom a password was given on the basis of recommendations given by other users. Those people who provided similar data uploads to increase the archive were also rewarded with a password. The second appellant, Steven Arnold, was one such user who assisted in the overall growth of the archive. At trial, Fellows was convicted on four offences of possessing indecent photographs of children that could be displayed or distributed to others, contrary to 1 (1)(c) under the Children’s Act of 1978, which prohibits possessing such indecent photographs with the intention to have them distributed or shown.

In 1397, King Richard II decided to strike back at the Lords Appellant, a group of noblemen who years earlier had partly usurped royal authority, and had executed several of Richard's favourites. The next year Hankford was among the justices consulted concerning the validity of a legal ruling from 1387 which had declared the Appellants' actions unlawful and treasonable. Hankford expressed his support for the rulings, and said he would have ruled the same way himself. On 6 May 1398 Hankford was appointed to succeed his friend Sir John Wadham as Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.

PLANS filed a notice of appeal of the decision in November, 2005."United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Civil Appeals Docketing Statement", PLANS, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v Sacramento City Unified School District, Twin Ridges Elementary School District, USCA Docket # 05-17193 The appeal claims that the earlier rulings preventing PLANS from calling two defense expert witnesses for their own case-in-chief left them no witnesses able to give evidence that anthroposophy was a religion."Appleant's Opening Brief" , filed 3/13/2006, United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, PLANS, Inc.

A person who is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision in respect of a proposal or objection may appeal to the Lands Tribunal. The appeal must be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days of service of the notice of decision. A copy of the notice of the appeal must also be served on the Commissioner within the same period. If the appellant is neither the owner nor the occupier of the tenement, he must also serve copies of the notice of appeal on the owner and occupier, both of whom may be heard on the hearing of the appeal.

As part of his successful reelection run in 1928,"Transcript of Record" C. L. Carrell (Appellant) vs. The Federal Radio Commission, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, October Term, 1928, No. 4899, page 40. he was issued a license for a low-powered portable broadcasting station, KGIF,KGIF was licensed in August 1928 ("New Stations", Radio Service Bulletin, August 31, 1928, page 3) and deleted the following May. ("Strike Out All Particulars", Radio Service Bulletin, May 31, 1929, page 12.) which was authorized for a few months to travel throughout Nebraska with the campaign.

In 1387 he was one of the Lords Appellant, who endeavored to separate Richard from his favorites. After Richard regained power, Beauchamp retired to his estates, but was invited to London on a ruse in 1397 and charged with high treason, supposedly as a part of the Earl of Arundel's alleged conspiracy. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London (in what is now known as the "Beauchamp Tower"), pleaded guilty and threw himself on the mercy of the king. He forfeited his estates and titles, and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the Isle of Man.

What was in issue was not so much whether a general prohibition on corporal punishment in schools could be justified, but whether the impact of such a prohibition on the religious beliefs and practices of the members of the appellant could be justified under the limitations test of section 36. The proportionality exercise had to relate to whether the failure to accommodate the appellant's religious belief and practice by means of the exemption prayed for could be accepted as reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, freedom and equality.Para 32.

This representative reviews the case by interpreting acts administered by the CBSA and reviewing CBSA policies, considering the appellant's point of view; and when necessary, asking for a technical opinion from CBSA experts or seeking legal advice from the Canadian Department of Justice. The representative who reviews the case will not have been involved in the original assessment, determination, or ruling of a duty, penalty or other matter. The appellant can discuss the case with an appeals representative, and has the right to obtain certain documents related to the case. The CBSA does not charge for a review.

The appellant claimed to have a proprietary interest in the know-how acquired by the respondents and sought to interdict them, relying on the restraint of trade clause. The respondents denied the proprietary interest claimed and contended that the relevant know-how acquired by the first and second respondents was neither confidential nor specific to the appellant's business but was commonly available to artisans and technicians. As a result, it was argued that the knowledge formed part of the first and second respondents' stock of general knowledge, skill and experience, with which they were entitled to earn their living in any other business.

The appellant, a farmer, had fired two shots at an unidentified person walking across farmland, who had not responded to his calls. The second shot struck and killed that person. The farmer was convicted of murder by a single judge in the circuit court of the North Gauteng High Court and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment, five of which were suspended on the usual conditions. An appeal to the full bench of that court was dismissed in respect of the conviction but upheld in respect of sentence, the court substituting the trial court's sentence with one of ten years' imprisonment.

When the case was tried, > he objected to the introduction of any testimony, upon the ground that the > information did not charge any offense against the laws of Oklahoma. Every > conceivable objection was offered to each question asked every witness in > the case. Counsel for appellant was evidently fishing with a grabhook and > seining with a dragnet, hoping that by some lucky chance he might catch onto > an unforeseen and unknown error, and thereby secure the reversal of a > conviction. In some states this practice may be beneficial, but it has > directly the opposite effect in this state.

The Appellate Division set the conviction. The trial court, it held, should have had, on the basis of finding that the evidence for the defence might reasonably be substantially true, and in the light of the circumstances and considerations reflected in the evidence, a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had established that the appellant had not killed the deceased lawfully in private-defence. The court endorsed the following propositions from Gardiner and Lansdown, based on authority: > Where a man can save himself by flight, he should flee rather than kill his > assailant [...].Matthaeus (48.5.3.7).

Saul (1997), p. 340–2. The inspiration for this new sumptuousness and emphasis on dignity came from the courts on the continent, not only the French and Bohemian courts that had been the homes of Richard's two wives, but also the court that his father had maintained while residing in Aquitaine.Saul (1997), pp. 344–54. Richard's approach to kingship was rooted in his strong belief in the royal prerogative, the inspiration of which can be found in his early youth, when his authority was challenged first by the Peasants' Revolts and then by the Lords Appellant.

Appeals are required to be submitted to the Registrar electronically or otherwise on a prescribed form, accompanied by:(a) A brief that explains the legal basis of any of the five grounds for appeal set out in article 2.1 of the statute relied upon. The registrar after ensuring that the appeal complies with the laid down procedures transmit the appeal to the respondent. If the formal requirements of the article are not fulfilled, the Registrar may require the appellant to conform the appeal to the requirements of the article. The form for the appeal is available on the UN AT website.

St. George Tucker, a noted justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, participated in ruling on the appeals case."Hudgins v. Wright" Case Materials, Digital Archives: Tucker-Coleman Papers, Swem Library, College of William and Mary He and his fellow justices ruled that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to offset Wright's claim to be of Indian descent through her maternal line, as witnesses testified about her mother and grandmother. As a result, based on the long prohibition in the colony against Indian slavery and the Wrights' appearance as "white", Jackey Wright and her two children gained their liberty.

Two years later the king, with Queen Anne, stayed with Henry Ferrers at Groby whilst on a Royal progress around The Midlands.Goodman, A., The Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard II (Great Britain, 1971), 19. In 1382, he and two others were found by Inquisition post mortem to be the heirs of William Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, by rights of their wives, Suffolk's sisters. He died 3 February 1388 aged 31;Cokayne, G.E., The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant V, eds V. Gibbs & H.A. Doubleday (2nd ed.

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords was a High Court of Australia case regarding the liability of auditors to third parties. It was decided on 18 March 1997. The appellant, Esanda, loaned money to a corporation in reliance on a report prepared by a finance company, Peat Marwick Hungerfords. When the borrower defaulted on the loan, Esanda turned to the auditors to recover claiming it had acted on reliance of audited accounts which breached mandatory accounting standards in relation to preparing the accounts and but for this breach of duty by Peat Marwick Hungerford.

A Puerto Rico law permits only United States citizens to practice privately as civil engineers. Appellees are alien civil engineers residing in Puerto Rico, one of whom (Flores de Otero) was denied a license under this law, and the other of whom (Perez Nogueiro) was granted only a conditional license to work for the Commonwealth. Each appellee brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against appellant Examining Board and its members in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, claiming jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and alleging that the statute's citizenship requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An appeal "as of right" is one that is guaranteed by statute or some underlying constitutional or legal principle. The appellate court cannot refuse to listen to the appeal. An appeal "by leave" or "permission" requires the appellant to obtain leave to appeal; in such a situation either or both of the lower court and the court may have the discretion to grant or refuse the appellant's demand to appeal the lower court's decision. In the Supreme Court, review in most cases is available only if the Court exercises its discretion and grants a writ of certiorari.

On 5 December 2006, Shibu Soren was sentenced to life imprisonment. A Delhi court rejected his bail plea, stating: 'We cannot overlook the fact that the appellant (Soren) has been convicted after a detailed and elaborate trial only in November 2006 and sentenced in December 2006. The bench also noted that he was also being tried in a number of other cases, including the case of mass murder in Jharkhand. On 25 June 2007, Shibu Soren was being escorted to his jail in Dumka, Jharkhand when his convoy was attacked by bombs, but no one was hurt.

Later the manager ordered Tucker to leave the village. Insisting that the manager had no right to suppress religious activities, appellant declined to leave, and his arrest followed. At the trial the manager testified that the controlling Federal agency had given him full authority to regulate the conduct of those living in the village, and that he did not allow preaching by ministers of any denomination without a permit issued by him in his discretion. He thought this broad authority was entrusted to him, at least in part, by a regulation, which the Authority's Washington office had allegedly promulgated.

Article 1 ("A1P1")UK Supreme Court, R (on the application of Mott) (Respondent) v Environment Agency (Appellant) (2018) UKSC 10: Press Summary, published 14 February 2018, accessed 28 December 2018 provides that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions". The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged a violation of the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, also, in the uncertainty – for the owner – about the future of the property, and in the absence of an allowance.

However, when evidence presented at the trial discredited this idea, the prosecution shifted ground and suggested Pederick had been looking at Desai leaving the hotel later on the Sunday afternoon. Anderson was convicted of three counts of murder on 25 October 1990.R. v Timothy Edward Anderson, Supreme Court of NSW, Criminal Division, 1990. In 1991 Anderson was acquitted on appeal. Announcing the verdict, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson found: “The trial of the appellant miscarried principally because of an error which resulted in large part from the failure of the prosecuting authorities adequately to check aspects of the Jayawardene theory.”R.

In Virginia, for example, the lowest level of court is the Virginia General District Court, which can hear claims of up to US$25,000, and can try misdemeanors. Above that court is a second level of trial courts, the Virginia Circuit Court, which may hear claims in excess of US$4,500 and may try certain types of felony cases. The General District Courts do not have jury trials at all, but appeals may be taken from a General District Court to the circuit court of that jurisdiction, and the appellant may receive a new trial with a jury.

Walker, p. 228. Ipstones was returned as a knight of the shire to the parliament, which was called after the Lords Appellant defeated the king's supporters at the Battle of Radcot Bridge in December 1387 and assembled in February 1388. Ipstones seems to have been a willing participant in the purge carried out by this so-called Merciless Parliament of the king's closest associates, many of whom were executed. The expenses of the Staffordshire MPs, Ipstones and Roger Logridge, came to £44 8s. For the 111 days of the parliament, signed off on 4 June.Calendar of Close Rolls, 1385–1389, p. 495.

In the early morning hours of June 5, Marcell Young, Malak Hussian, and Mustafa Hussian were shot and killed while their mother, Mary Hussian, wrestled with another gunman in a separate part of the house. On July 5, 1995, the prosecutor charged Riley Noel with the capital murders of the three children and the attempted capital murder of Mary Hussian. On June 4, 1995, Noel, appellant Carroll, Curtis Lee Cochran, and Tracy Trinette Calloway were riding around Little Rock in Cochran's car, "getting high" on drugs. Noel believed that another child of Mary Hussian, a daughter, had been involved in his brother's death.

Boardman is also noteworthy in being the appellant in Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (House of Lords) a leading case on fiduciary duty and constructive trusts. Although he was ultimately required to account to the trust for additional benefits that accrued from his actions, the courts commended him for the service he had delivered to the beneficiaries, to whom the court held he owed fiduciary duties. Whilst he lost and would technically have had to account for the profits, Boardman was allowed in fact to keep the greater part of the profit as reward for his service.

However, crisis ensued almost immediately in his absence, and in 1387 King Richard's misrule brought England to the brink of civil war. Only John, on his return to England in 1389, succeeded in persuading the Lords Appellant and King Richard to compromise to usher in a period of relative stability. During the 1390s, John's reputation of devotion to the well-being of the kingdom was largely restored. During his second marriage, John of Gaunt had entered into an extra- marital love affair with Katherine Swynford, the daughter of an ordinary knight, which would produce four children for the couple.

The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation.[1994] 1 AC 212, at 238 The physical severity was not disputed. Each appellant (having had legal advice) pleaded guilty to the offence when the trial judge ruled that consent of the victim was no defence.

The appellant (J) appealed against a decision (2005 1 S.C. 281) that a right of vehicular access from a public road included a right to park on the servient tenement such vehicles as were reasonably incidental to the enjoyment of access to the dominant tenement. The respondents (M) owned a property situated between the foot of a steep escarpment and the foreshore. Vehicles could not be driven onto the property. The property once formed part of the lands owned by J and he was the owner of the land between the property and the public road.

The Lord Ordinary, > however, developed his own theory, which was not put to any of the expert > medical witnesses who gave evidence for the respondents nor was it canvassed > at all at the hearing. The First Division of the Court of Session held that > the appellant was not entitled to succeed on the basis of this theory and > this decision has not been challenged before your Lordships. Lord Ackner agreed that this case was distinguishable from McGhee. In McGhee there was no problem about evidence that the failure to provide a shower could have caused Mr McGhee's dermatitis.

As the State of California chose not to appeal the ruling, an appeal was sought by two parties—the initiative proponents, and Imperial County (via its deputy clerk). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the question of standing first. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Imperial County did not have standing to intervene in the lawsuit (by now called Perry v. Brown)—the formal reason being the county's appeal had been "untimely", but also that the appellant was the county's deputy clerk, and precedent existed in other cases that a deputy clerk could not 'represent' a county.

In English law the concept of "irresistible impulse" was developed in the 1960 case R v. Byrne. The appellant (described as a violent sexual psychopath) strangled then mutilated a young woman, it was alleged that Byrne suffered from violent and perverted sexual desires which he found impossible to control. Lord Parker C.J. broadened the definition of "abnormality of mind" to include those lacking "the ability to exercise will-power to control acts in accordance with [their] rational judgment". "Irresistible impulse" can be pleaded only under the defense of diminished responsibility, not under the defense of insanity.

On 9 December 1987, the appellant attacked and shot a man in a fish and chip shop, following an argument. The victim was admitted to hospital and underwent surgery, though he developed a respiratory problem requiring a tracheostomy tube to be inserted into his windpipe.[1991] 1 WLR 844, at 844 On 8 February 1988, and again on 14 February, the victim complained that he was having difficulty breathing, dying shortly after. Medical evidence at the defendant's trial was given that the victim's death was the result of his doctor's failure to diagnose the reason behind his breathlessness and respiratory obstruction.

A divisive quarrel and pamphlet war among English Catholics, the Archpriest controversy, had in 1603 been contentious for about five years. The resulting alignment of Catholic priests had a great deal to do with making the plots of 1603 impractical, and also made one side of the argument receptive to the idea of informing the London government. William Watson took the "appellant" side in the Archpriest Controversy, hostile to George Blackwell who had been appointed by the Holy See. Useful to the English government and church for his polemics, Watson was under the protection of Richard Bancroft, then bishop of London.

The king and his advisers saw this commission as infringing on royal authority, and on 25 August 1387 Belknap and the other justices involved were summoned to Nottingham and asked whether such a commission was lawful and, if not, how the summoners should be punished. The justices responded that such a commission was unlawful, and that the summoners should be punished as traitors. Belknap reportedly refused to seal the answers until threatened with death by Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, and Michael de la Pole. In response to this the Lords Appellant seized power on 17 November.

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court "recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter - to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way - by removing the incentive to disregard it." However, the Court makes an effort to say that it is not the exclusionary rule which sets the appellant free, "it is the law that sets him free." In Mapp v. Ohio, when Mapp's conviction was overturned it was due to the fact that the law "gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him.

P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions [2002 IESC 46] is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court barred the further prosecution of a man (P.M., the appellant) for the alleged sexual abuse of his sister due to the nature of the offences and on the grounds of the pre-charge delay in criminal prosecution. A "inordinate" delay of seven years before the man was charged, coupled with the nature of the offences being described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten" led to the decision of the court.

783, para. 12. Judge of Appeal V. K. Rajah concluded that additional duties are not foisted on a tribunal merely because the individual is unrepresented. The main question in any alleged cases of breach of natural justice is whether the individuals concerned were given the opportunity to present their cases and if they suffered any prejudice as a result of any unfairness in the conduct of the proceedings. In the above case the appellant, a doctor who had been found guilty of professional misconduct, had been given the opportunity to present his case, cross-examine the witnesses, and also make a mitigation plea.

In September 1970, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the convictions of Gertrude and Paula Baniszewski on the basis that Judge Saul Isaac Rabb had denied repeatedly submitted motions by their defense counsel at their original trial, for both a change of venue and separate trials. This ruling further stated that the circumstances regarding the prejudicial atmosphere created during their initial trial, due to the extensive news media publicity surrounding the case, impeded any chance of either appellant receiving a fair trial. The pair were retried in 1971.Unnamed author: "Court Orders New Trial in Likens Slaying", The Indianapolis Star, September 2, 1970.

May 22, 1992. # United States of America, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. David Guardino, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-6212, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 22, 1992. # Order, Case No. 94-6386, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, November 15, 1994, Claim: Ms. Eunice Holt James, Chief of Probation and Pretrial Services, U.S. Courts, Probation and Pretrial Services Division. # Motion, In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville, David Marius Guardino, Plaintiff, vs. Steve Cus Sr. et al., Defendants, No. 3:94-CV-108, Exhibit 18, August 22, 1994.

The retrial, however, does not constitute double jeopardy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the original trial presided by Judge Frank Wilson was a sham – because the acquittal was guaranteed by the bribe he had accepted.Harry Aleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, criminal Division, Illinois, Honorable Michael P. Toomin, judge Presiding, Honorable Richard Devine, State's Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, Ernesto Velasco, Executive Director, Cook County Department of Corrections, respondents-appellees – 138 F.3d 302 – Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions. Cases.justia.com.

The appeal referred to s3 which required the jury to have regard to "everything both said and done according to the effect which in their opinion it would have on a reasonable man". The appellant argued that instead of considering the final provocation, the jury should have considered the events over the years leading up to the killing. Beldam L. J. rejected this, saying: But in R v Thornton (No 2)R v Thornton (No 2) (1996) 2 AER 1023 after considering new medical evidence, a retrial was ordered and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility.

The cancellation of the agencies terminated the taxpayer's mortgage business; the department was closed and the staff was disbanded. In holding that the payments were capital, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the loss of the two agencies represented “the loss of capital assets of an enduring nature the value of which had been built up over the years and that therefore the payments received by this appellant represented capital receipts”. In The Queen v. Manley, 85 DTC 5150, the taxpayer was hired to find a purchaser for the shares of a family-owned company in exchange for a finder's fee.

In Nappalli, the appellant was dismissed from an educational institution for his refusal to participate in the aforementioned acts. Central to his claim was the submission that these acts were religious practices that went against his belief as a Jehovah's Witness and thus infringed his constitutional right to practice and profess his religion guaranteed by Article 15. However, the Court held that since "religion" in Singapore under the Constitution is restricted to "a citizen's faith in a personal God" and does not include "a system of belief in one's own country", the acts in question were not religious practices.

According to the appellant, this contravened her right to religious practice on grounds that the wearing of the purdah was part of her religious practice as a Muslim. However, the court disagreed and held that the purdah was not considered a religious practice as it was not a requirement under Islam since there was no express mention of such a requirement in the Quran. However, in the Philippines, the courts have accorded the individual autonomy to decide what constitutes religious practice. It is up to the individual to decide what constitutes religious practice so long as such acts do not offend public interest.

1, now the Supreme Court's library. In 1931 he became a companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) and was made a knight (KCB) of the same order in 1935. During the First World War he sat for 449 days (from 25 February 1916) as one of the ten members of the Appeal Tribunal for the County of Middlesex, which he described: "This was sad work and many hard cases had to be dealt with, and often decided against the appellant". He was vice- chairman (1912–1925) and then chairman (1925–1936) of the Middlesex Territorial and Auxiliary Force Association.

Harrington's key argument was that Barnbrook at any one time wears three hats: the first for his political position within the BNP, the second as Assembly member for the GLA, and the third of LBBD Councillor. Sometimes the boundaries between these three functions became blurred, according to Harrington. In relation to the video the appellant was not acting in his capacity as a councillor. When Barnbrook made reference to Barking and Dagenham it was by way of an illustration in the same way as he had cited incidents that had occurred in other parts of England.

When the dissensions among the imprisoned priests at Wisbech Castle broke out in 1595 (the so-called "Wisbech Stirs"), he with Dr. Dudley went there to arbitrate. Failing in this, together with John Colleton he set himself to devise some organization of a voluntary character among the clergy which might supply the want of episcopal government much felt after the death of Cardinal William Allen in 1594. Opposed by Robert Persons, it was rendered superfluous by the appointment of an archpriest (1599). In the ensuing archpriest controversy Mush was one of the appellant clergy who appealed to Rome against the archpriest.

He also distinguishes Harrison from the Peters case based on the fact that, in this case, the appellant had an interest sanctioned by law, in pursuing legitimate claims against her employer. Additionally, he calls for a more reasoned adoption of stare decisis by the Supreme Court of Canada. This would allow the Court to depart from some of its previous decisions as it comes to realize that social conditions are changing: :This Court, above all others in this country, cannot be simply mechanistic about previous decisions ... we are free to depart :from previous decisions in order to support the pressing need to examine the present case on its merits.

Here it was stated that the test of negligence to be applied in criminal trials was the same as that applied in civil cases: the standard of care and skill which would be observed by a reasonable man.See also Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 121, 109, 116. The appellant had failed to observe that degree of care which a reasonable man would have observed under the circumstances: that is to say, the degree of care which the diligens pater familias, or the average prudent person, would have observed. On this culpa the appellant's accountability for the unintentional death of the child was based.

In Van Eeden v. Minister of Safety and Security (Women's Legal Centre Trust, as Amicus Curiae), an important case in the South African of law of delict as well as the country's criminal law, the appellant, Ghia Van Eeden, was assaulted, raped, and robbed by a known, dangerous criminal who had escaped from police custody. The court held that the state was obliged to protect individuals by taking active steps to prevent violations of the constitutional right to freedom and security of the person, inter alia by protecting everyone from violent crime. It was also obliged under international law to protect women specifically from violent crime.

Appellant United States challenged a decision from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, which affirmed a decision from the Board of Commissioners in favor of respondents, several claimants to California land who claimed title under the Mexican government through a common grantor. The issue was whether the petition for confirmation of the claim was rightly granted and affirmed. The grantor's title, which was not disputed before the Commissioners or the district court, was first objected to on appeal to the court. The government contended that the governor and secretary should have been called as the proper witnesses to authenticate their own acts.

Even so, later attempts by the Appellants to get Exton and the Londoners to actively support and commit to their anti-Ricardian faction still failed. According to the St Alban's Chronicle, Exton officially distributed food and drink to the Lords' encamped retainers in an attempt at dissuading them from treating the City as the spoils of victory. This was a particular worry for the rich, whose great houses would be first targeted. Favent reports that the Duke of Gloucester, a leading Appellant, on hearing Exton's pledges of the city's loyalty, remarked, "Now I know in truth that liars tell nothing but lies, nor can anyone prevent them from being told".

The Westminster Chronicle reports that when Exton's term was up in October 1388, Richard II was willing for Exton to continue as Mayor into 1389 (even if he had supposedly thwarted royal plans to assassinate members of parliament). But Exton's personal, if private, support for Richard, such as it was, may have earned him the distrust of Londoners. Just before Exton's mayoralty ended, the parliament then being held at Cambridge by the victorious Lords Appellant formally pardoned Exter— at his own petition—for any treasons or felonies he may have committed in previous years. This parliament also forbade Londoners from criticising him regarding alleged derogation of the city's liberties.

During this period Brembre was a loyal supporter of the King, who at this time was engaged in a bitter conflict with some of his nobles (known collectively as the Lords Appellant). They managed to manoeuvre the King into surrendering some of his authority, and this, in turn, weakened Brembre, who was eventually executed by the Appellants for his support of the King. By then, Exton had in turn been elected Mayor. Although for a while he and Brembre worked together in running London, when his predecessor fell from influence, Exton effectively deserted him, even to the point of being partially responsible for Brembre's eventual hanging.

Before a decision was made in the case, Bratt and co-appellant Marilyn J. Patrick filed a Title IX complaint with the State Division of Human Rights alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. The latter organization helped mediate the decision, but subsequently, the board claimed that the state division had no right to hear the case and the Board of Education filed suit against the State Division of Human Rights in 1971. In 1974, Bratt graduated magna cum laude and in the Order of the Coif from Syracuse University's College of Law. She then clerked for the Presiding Justice of the New York Supreme Court from 1974 to 1975.

Gale Norton, as the Attorney General of Colorado, argued the case for the appellant, stating that the State, under the strict scrutiny standard, had a compelling interest in preventing forgery, fraud, and misconduct; as well as in ensuring the integrity and the reliability of the legislative process, similar to the commitment of state legislators and state judges. Additionally, Norton argued that asking persons to sign an initiative was akin to performing an electoral function. Arguments for the respondents centered around the scope of core political speech, as noted in Meyer v. Grant, and how the requirements differed between initiatives and other petition drives, such as nomination petitions.

Lower courts had been relying on their standards for distinguishing expressions of opinion from statements of fact in defamation actions for several years' Having expected Milkovich to give them some test or standard to apply, they were caught off guard when the Supreme Court backed off.. Since Milkovich, there have been no significant defamation rulings by the court. Free-speech advocates, however, continue to press and hope for the recognition of an opinion privilege. In 2004, the court denied certiorari in Santa Barbara News- Press v. Ross, a case in which the appellant sought to establish that corporate executives such as the appellee were automatically public figures.

This would impose the legal onus on the Crown to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of drugs for supply. The majority of the court found that the reverse onus in section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was not rationally connected to the objective or it was not a proportionate response to the problem, and was in breach of section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, section 4 of the Bill of Rights Act forced the court to allow the presumption-of-supply clause to prevail, and Hansen's appeal was unsuccessful.

"Para 20. "It is clear," the court found, > that the respondent was not suspended because her behaviour was obstructing > or disrupting or unreasonably impeding the management of orderly business > within the Assembly, but as some kind of punishment for making a speech in > the Assembly some days earlier which did not obstruct or disrupt the > proceedings in the Assembly at the time.Para 17. "In the result," continued Mahomed CJ, "the appellant has failed to persuade me that the National Assembly had any constitutional authority to suspend the respondent from the National Assembly in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence adduced before the High Court.

They also jointly published in French a learned account of their journeys: Voyage littéraire de deux religieux bénédictins de la Congrégation de St. Maur (2 vols. Paris, 1717 and 1724). In addition to the works which Durand published jointly with Martène, he also collaborated with Dantine and Clémencet in a French work on diplomatics, entitled L'Art de vérifier les dates, continued Constant's Collection of Papal Letters, assisted Sabatier with the edition of the "Itala" and contributed to many other Maurist publications. In 1734 he was banished from the monastery of St-Germain-des- Prés as a Jansenist "Appellant", at the instance of Cardinal de Bissy.

The appellant, Matthew David Spencer, used LimeWire to download child pornography onto a computer belonging to his sister, with whom he lived, and inadvertently shared it publicly. A member of the Saskatoon Police Service, using software to track worldwide child pornography file sharing, found Spencer's IP address among the results. Police investigators suspected the IP address to belong to a Shaw Communications customer in Saskatoon, although they did not know the identity or precise location of the customer to whom the IP address belonged. Without a production order or judicial authorization, police investigators made a written request to Shaw for the subscriber information linked to the IP address in question.

In an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, it was held that, accepting the evidence of the witness,The witness testified that "he fired the first shot into the ground and there was dust [...]. He shot in the direction of the person [....] The dust was next to the person" (Para 9). the appellant (who was a very good marksman) must subjectively have foreseen, when he aimed the second shot at the same place as the first, the possibility that the bullet could ricochet after striking a stone or some other object and in the process strike the deceased. Regardless of that foreseeable possibility, he went on to shoot.

The court of appeal considers the sentence anew and the sentence may be more or less severe than the sentence imposed, regardless of who appealed; this is referred to as the "Hill Principle"R v Hill, [1977 1 SCR 827.] There are some additional considerations taken into account at an appeal. Given the high stakes for both the accused and the safety of the public, fresh evidence of post-sentence conduct is routinely admitted. Where the appellant was granted bail pending appeal and has presented fresh evidence indicating that reincarceration would be unduly harsh, the court of appeal may reduce a sentence despite the absence of a reviewable error.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education, 670 F.2d 59 (6th Cir., 1982) A panel composed of the circuit's chief judge at the time, George Clifton Edwards, Jr., Albert J. Engel, Jr. and senior judge John Weld Peck II heard arguments in late 1981. A little over a month later, four years and two days after the Supreme Court's decision in the case, they issued a brief per curiam opinion that largely recounted the history of the case to that point. "We read this record as disclosing that while appellant Doyle had some fine qualities as a teacher, he also had a very quick temper," they wrote.

During the Wonderful Parliament of 1386 he was impeached on charges of embezzlement and negligence, a victim of increasing tensions between Parliament and Richard.J.S. Roskell, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386 in the Context of the Reign of Richard II (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984) He was the first official in English history to be removed from office by the process of impeachment. Even after this disgrace, he remained in royal favour, although soon fell foul of the Lords Appellant. He was one of a number of Richard's associates accused of treason by the Appellants in November 1387.

A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents.

On April 13, 2001, a memo from WUSN management asking on- air station employees to attend the George Strait Country Music Festival on May 26, 2001 at their own expense and "work the crowd" on behalf of the station was leaked to Robert Feder's media column for the Chicago Sun-Times. On July 7, 2003, country music radio personality Cliff Dumas sued Infinity Broadcasting Corporation and WUSN in United States District Court, seeking monetary damages. Dumas alleged that station management had induced him to resign gainful employment at a New Mexico radio station to take a job which was offered but then never materialized.Cliff Dumas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

The respondent’s answer is required to submit within 60 days of the date on which the respondent received the appeal transmitted by the Registrar, on a prescribed form, along with a brief, not exceed 15 pages, setting out legal arguments in support of the answer, along with signed original answer form and the annexes. The Registrar shall transmit a copy of the answer to the appellant. The party answering may file a cross- appeal, the appeal within 60 days of notification of the appeal, accompanied by a brief which shall not exceed 15 pages, with the Appeals Tribunal stating the relief sought and the grounds of the cross- appeal.

Schwikkard finds, though, that "much is to be said for the contextual approach taken by Yacoob J in respect of the appropriate warning to be given to arrested persons."Schwikkard & Van der Merwe Evidence 312. Yacoob J suggested that a more complex warning as to the consequences of remaining silent may well “tilt the balance in favour of getting [a] person to speak,” and that such a consequence may not necessarily be fairer than the constitutionally prescribed warning that “encourages silence on the part of an arrested person.” As a result, Yacoob J concluded that the more limited warning did not result in any unfairness to the appellant.

Some cases from the late 1950s and 1960s held that a potentially expatriating act could not actually cause loss of citizenship absent awareness that one had citizenship. Cites See further Later case law modulated this: in Breyer v. Meissner (2000), the Third Circuit stated in dicta that voluntary service in the Waffen-SS during World War II would constitute "unequivocal renunciation of American citizenship whether or not the putative citizen [was] then aware that he has a right to American citizenship".However, the Third Circuit upheld the district court's finding that the Waffen-SS service of plaintiff-appellant Johann Breyer was involuntary and that he had not thus relinquished U.S. citizenship.

In Kroukam v SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd, an important case in South African labour law, the Appellant was employed as a senior pilot. He was dismissed after being found guilty of insubordination and constituting a disruptive influence in the operations of the company. At the time of his dismissal he was also the chairperson of the Airlines Pilots Association (a trade union). He contended that his dismissal was in fact automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act, because he had been dismissed for union activities and for initiating litigation against the company on behalf of the union.

The Lords Appellant throw down their gauntlets and demand Richard II let them prove by arms the justice for their rebellion To "throw down the gauntlet" is to issue a challenge. A gauntlet-wearing knight would challenge a fellow knight or enemy to a duel by throwing one of his gauntlets on the ground. The opponent would pick up the gauntlet to accept the challenge. The phrase is associated particularly with the action of the King's Champion, which officer's role was from medieval times to act as champion for the King at his coronation, in the unlikely event that someone challenged the new King's title to the throne.

Each appellant then requested a Certificate of Appealability to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which were all granted in whole or in part by the District Court. On January 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court granted a motion to consolidate the appeals of the four appellants.Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, PACER Service Center On October 7, 2009 the appeals were heard by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Attorneys for the four alleged false testimony by McLoren and misconduct by the prosecution, including failure to disclose evidence favorable to the defense.

New Brunswick Broadcasting Company, carrying on business under the name of MITV, had made a request to film the proceedings of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly with its own camera or one provided by the speaker. However, the Speaker refused television cameras in the House citing parliamentary privilege. New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Trial Division against the appellant seeking an order "allowing MITV to film the proceedings of the House of Assembly with its own cameras or by the Speaker providing full television coverage to all members of the television media, or otherwise". The Speaker joined issue.

The separate cases were consolidated when the state suit was removed to federal court by the appellant, Dwight Geduldig, Director of the California Department of Human Resources Development. Initially, the appellees sought to enjoin enforcement of the exclusionary policy, and the District Court, as a divided three-judge panel, granted their motion for summary judgment, holding that the program’s administration violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and stating that “the exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities is not based upon a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose.” The court further denied a motion to stay its judgment pending appeal.

Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General was a 2013 decision of the Court of Appeal of Singapore which held that Article 49(1) of the Constitution requires the Prime Minister to call a by-election when a casual vacancy arises in a Single Member Constituency ("SMC"), though the election need only be called within a reasonable time. The holding was an obiter dictum, that is, not required for the decision in the case and therefore not a binding precedent, though it may be persuasive in future cases. This was because the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant, Madam Vellama, lacked standing.

Barnette protested that Causten was only entitled to one-third of what had been earned or acquired during the first winter at Chenoa City. During proceedings, Barnette's 1886 imprisonment became public. The Fairbanks Daily Times (which had only begun publishing a daily edition that year) ran a banner headline: "EX-CONVICT". On June 26, 1908 the court ruled in favor of Causten, ordering Barnette to pay Causten a third of any assets acquired since he arrived in the Tanana Valley. Among other things, the court observed that “The conduct of appellant Barnette in connection with the suit is not calculated to inspire the greatest confidence.”Causten, 49 Wash.

However, in 2020 the Supreme Court ruled in Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another that buildings in the scheme must meet certain criteria - "a three-fold test which involved considering size, permanence and degree of physical attachment" - referred to as the Skerritts test in reference to a previous legal case in England.Dill (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another (Respondents), judgement of the Supreme Court, handed down on 20 May 2020 following a hearing on 10 March 2020 and accessed upon 23 May 2020 Both Historic Environment Scotland and Cadw produce guidance for owners.

4th 703 (2000). The plaintiff in this case unsuccessfully challenged the selective publication policy as unconstitutional. The court retorted: "Appellant either misunderstands or ignores the realities of the intermediate appellate process." The court went on to describe the variety of frivolous appeals regularly encountered by the Courts of Appeal, and concluded: "Our typical opinions in such cases add nothing to the body of stare decisis, and if published would merely clutter overcrowded library shelves and databases with information utterly useless to anyone other than the actual litigants therein and complicate the search for meaningful precedent." the opinions that are published are included in the official reporter, California Appellate Reports.

British courts did not accept Pretty's arguments, with the House of Lords, Britain's highest court at the time, eventually turning her case down.The Queen on the Application of Mrs Diane Pretty (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party) The European Court of Human Rights refused to acknowledge that the European Convention on Human Rights provided a right to die,Article 2 of the Convention ... can not give protection to the negative right to life (that is, the right to end it): and her appeal to that court also failed.ECHR, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, application no.

For civil cases on appeal, the appellant must request a jury; if no such request is made, then the appeal will be heard by a Circuit Court judge alone. Cases heard in the GDC may not be directly appealed to any court other than the Circuit Court, although the decisions of the Circuit Court are subject to further appellate review. In determining whether the matter exceeds $50, the Circuit Court looks to the recovery achieved by the plaintiff. If, for example, the plaintiff seeks $3,000 and recovers $2,960, the plaintiff will have no right to appeal, but the defendant will (having been assessed a judgment well in excess of $50).

Power of the President to remove federal officers: Opinions and dissenting opinions of the Supreme court of the United States in the case of Lois P. Myers, administratrix of Frank S. Myers, appellant, v. the United States together with briefs and oral arguments by Mr. Will R. King, the senior senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pepper, and the then solicitor general, Mr. Beck, also briefs and reply briefs in reargument..., p. 289. Congress asserted a right to remove officers, ostensibly to create a blank slate for incoming presidents as well as to weed out poor performers.Prakash, Saikrishna, “Removal and Tenure of Office,” Virginia Law Review 92:1799 (2006), p. 1797, n. 70.

The question of whether acting on a mistaken belief was a sufficient defence to a criminal charge was debated for more than a century until it was clarified at the Court of Appeal in the case R. v Williams (Gladstone) (1984), concerning an appeal heard in November 1983. The appellant, Gladstone Williams, had seen a man dragging a younger man violently along the street while the latter shouted for help. Mistakenly believing that an assault was taking place, Williams intervened and injured the apparent assailant, who was actually attempting to apprehend a suspected thief. Williams was subsequently convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

If the appellant or the authority is discontent with the decision of the administrative court, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The proceedings are chiefly written, but if the case requires, the administrative courts may conduct surveys, hold oral proceedings, hear witnesses, experts or involved parties, or receive opinions from other authorities. The decisions of the municipal governments (, ) can be appealed against by any member of the municipality, regardless whether the decision involves them. However, while the usual administrative court proceeding examines both the reasonableness and the legality of the decision, the municipal decision can only be overturned on the grounds of legality.

83 In 1988, the mother of Sutcliffe's last victim, Jacqueline Hill, during action for damages on behalf of her daughter's estate, argued in the High Court that the police had failed to use reasonable care in apprehending the murderer of her daughter in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. The House of Lords held that the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire did not owe a duty of care to the victim due to the lack of proximity and therefore failing on the second limb of the Caparo test."Judgments – Brooks (FC) (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Appellant) and others", House of Lords Publications.

The Court held that "[u]nless Gaffney is overruled by this court it is a governing authority on this issue" McGuinness J, Fennelly J and McCracken J agreed with this conclusion. Murray J also, fully agreed with this judgement, added that the appellant would have an actionable remedy on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. Murray J went on to note that "[i]n order for such an action to be considered...an appropriate remedy for the infringement of constitutional rights any order which a court may make where deceit is established should provide a reasonable measure of compensation for the consequential and foreseeable loss which a plaintiff has sustained".

In some cases, legal classification of White racial status has made it difficult for Mexican-American rights activists to prove minority discrimination. In the case Hernandez v. Texas (1954), civil rights lawyers for the appellant, named Pedro Hernandez, were confronted with a paradox: because Mexican Americans were classified as White by the federal government and not as a separate race in the census, lower courts held that they were not being denied equal protection by being tried by juries that excluded Mexican Americans by practice. The lower court ruled there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding people with Mexican ancestry among the juries.

J. McD v P.L and B.M [2007 IESC 28], [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological father, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named Respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Camp v. United States, 113 U.S. 648 (1885), was an action brought by the appellant on April 13, 1869 to recover a balance alleged to be due as compensation for collecting and delivering to the United States a large amount of cotton in bales which was captured and abandoned property within the meaning of the acts of Congress. He claimed to have performed the services in question under an arrangement or agreement with an agent of the US Treasury Department which the Secretary of the Treasury subsequently recognized as a valid contract with the government. He admits certain payments on his claim, and asks judgment for the further sum of $80,000.

A case in 2003 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales appealed an earlier decision and the finding of the Scientific Committee, that "Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland" should be designated an endangered ecological community, with the appellant arguing that the committee's decision was invalid. The Land and Environment Court also hears cases involving offences under the TSC Act. Thus, in Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Coffs Harbour Hardwoods Sales Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 52, the defendant was found guilty of damaging vegetation under the act. The Land and Environment Court also makes orders under the Act, which may be appealed.

In 1397, Joan's brother Richard Fitzalan, 11th Earl of Arundel and a Lord Appellant was executed on Tower Hill for his opposition to King Richard II of England. The king's half-brother John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntingdon accompanied him to the scaffold, as one of King Richard's representatives. Less than three years later in 1400, when Holland joined a conspiracy to murder the new king Henry IV (Joan's former son-in-law), and was captured near Joan's principal residence Pleshy Castle in Essex, he was turned over to her for punishment. Described as having possessed a "stern character",Costain, Thomas B. (1962).

The 1277 Treaty of Aberconwy guaranteed that Edward would provide full consideration to Llywelyn under the law, and also that disputes be settled "according to the laws of Wales for cases arising in Wales".Davies, p. 345. Llywelyn claimed that Arwystli was part of Wales, and as such the dispute must be settled by Welsh law, rather than the English common law of the Marches. Edward, however, used the case as a means to belittle the position of the Prince of Wales, insisting that Llywelyn must file his grievance as any other appellant, rather than receiving priority as one of the king's major vassals.

In 1993, Shaw and fellow Barrister Michael (Mike) Bungay successfully represented the Appellant Goodwin in a Court of Appeal case known as R v Goodwin (No.2). This case is now regarded by the New Zealand Justice Department as the leading (key) case in relation to the Rights of Persons arrested (Pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights). It is referred to in numerous decisions and law texts in New Zealand and overseas including Cambridge University’s Constitutional Law in the United Kingdom – Practice and Principles. The decision of Goodwin set forth the correct procedure for legal representation, and the effect of improper procedure on evidence and ultimately conviction.

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] 1 M.L.J. 261, Court of Appeal (Malaysia). the appellant had appealed against his wrongful dismissal from employment on the grounds of procedural unfairness. One of the issues brought up was whether an unfair procedure meant that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to life or liberty protected by Article 5(1) of the Malaysian Constitution, which is identical to Singapore's Article 9(1). Judge of the Court of Appeal Gopal Sri Ram held that the courts should take into consideration the unique characteristics and situation of the country, and must not be blind to the realities of life.

Public Prosecutor (2004), the Court of Appeal considered whether law in Article 9(1) includes principles of customary international law. In that case, the appellant argued that effecting a death sentence for drug trafficking by hanging is unconstitutional as a form of cruel and inhuman punishment not "in accordance with law". The Court agreed that there was a prohibition against torture and cruel and inhumane treatment in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that this is considered customary international law. However, a customary international law rule had to be "clearly and firmly established" before it was adopted by the courts,Nguyen Tuong Van, pp.

After graduating from university, Rozenes then served articles with Frank Galbally of the firm Galbally & O'Bryan and was admitted to the Supreme Courts of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia in 1971, and subsequently signed the Bar Roll in 1972. From 1972 to 1976 he had a general criminal and common law practice and from 1977 to 1991 he practised exclusively in the criminal jurisdiction with a specialisation in complex taxation, corporate and appellant criminal cases. He appeared before numerous Royal Commissions, including the HIH Royal Commission, Builders' Royal Commission and Melbourne Ambulance Service Royal Commission. He was appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1986.

An immigration card issued by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority reminding travellers to Singapore that the death penalty is imposed for drug trafficking The appellant, Yong Vui Kong, was a 19-year-old Malaysian national who was arrested in Singapore on 13 June 2007 and charged with trafficking in of diamorphine (heroin), a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA"). ("MDA"). ("P.P. v. Yong Vui Kong (2009, H.C.)"). Yong told investigators that he had not been aware of the contents of the packages which he was asked to handle, maintaining instead that he had been delivering packages for his boss, a man known as "Ah Hiang", for whom he was working as a debt-collector.

He raised instances of extraterritorial laws of Malaysia and India, but differentiated them from the Singapore position since there were express provisions in the constitutions of these jurisdictions providing for the extraterritorial reach of their legislatures, namely, Article 73(a) of the Constitution of Malaysia and Article 245(2) of the Constitution of India. Article 73(a) of the Malaysian Constitution states: Article 245(2) of the Indian Constitution likewise provides that: In contrast, the Singapore Constitution contains no similar provision. The appellant hence argued that "Parliament [was] bound by an inherent limitation on its powers so any legislation purporting to have extraterritorial effect must have been ultra vires the Constitution".Taw Cheng Kong (H.

Decided February 27, 1987. 812 F.2d 872 OPINION OF THE COURT I. Appellant Rose Martinelli appeals from the district court dismissal of her Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the United States for damages for the death of her son allegedly caused by injuries received while serving as a member of the United States Army Reserves. The district court held that suit was barred as a matter of law because of the doctrine expressed in Feres v. United States,340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), that military servicemen may not sue the United States government under the FTCA for injuries arising during service in the military.

The appeal was dismissed. Millin J held (and Maritz J concurred) that section 31(1)(a) was wide enough to cover all cases of reckless or negligent driving which would be civilly actionable if proved to be the proximate cause of damage sustained by the plaintiff. Its generality was not cut down by the provision made for special cases in the succeeding subsections. The appellant had correctly been convicted of a contravention of section 31(1)(a) by recklessly or negligently driving a motor car on a public road, inasmuch as his physical condition to his knowledge made it impossible for him to drive in a public road without probable danger to others.

You have become a liability to > society. You committed the present offence whilst the suspended sentence, > dated 20 February 1979, was hanging over your head. Your counsel has > explained the nature of the crimen injuria offence and the court will accept > what he said, namely that there was no physical involvement in that incident > and that what had happened is that you had sworn at a woman which led to > that conviction and sentence. The aims which the magistrate had therefore in mind were, in the first instance, deterrence of the appellant himself and, in view of the prevalence of rape and, indeed, an increase of rape cases heard by the courts, deterrence also of others.

In Viljoen JA's view, the magistrate had not overemphasised the retributive aspect. Viljoen JA also believed that the magistrate had correctly applied the deterrent aims, as far as the appellant himself as well as others were concerned. Considering that his previous sentences had had no deterrent effect upon him, as was illustrated by the commission of the present offence on March 26, 1979, barely a month after a portion of each of his sentences imposed on February 20, 1979,Crimen injuria, assault on a white male and a police officer, and malicious injury to property. was suspended for three years on various conditions, the magistrate had not erred as far as deterrence of himself was concerned.

Another recent historian takes a much darker view: that Exton was "a dangerous and powerful man who needed to be reminded of the consequences of placing private interests above those of the commonalty" and "every bit as ﬁckle and unscrupulous" as Thomas Usk, whom the Appellants had themselves had executed.Either way, Exton's policy was clearly one of non-alignment, if probably an "opportunistic neutrality". The basis of Exton's problem was that the King had attempted—with some success—to build up a Ricardian faction in London politics in the early- to-mid 1380s (for example, Brembre). Whereas, actually, much of the City (including of course many who were close to Brembre) were often sympathetic to the Lords Appellant.

This made the plaintiffs feel further stronger disappointment and anger, a sense of being discriminated, and dissatisfaction, and also feeling irritated by their aging, the plaintiffs at last had no choice but to file this suit. (3) This case is an extraordinary one in which with regard to relief for atomic bomb survivors who suffered unprecedented serious damage caused by the atomic bombing, the appellant prepared and issued the directive based on an erroneous construction of the relevant statutes. In light of the seriousness, magnitude, and particular nature of the mental distress that the plaintiffs suffered before filing this suit, it is appropriate to grant each of them one million yen as compensation for their mental distress.

In 2011, under section 6 of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008, the Minister for Finance issued promissory notes to the value of EUR 30 billion to two financial institutions. These were the Educational Building Society (EBS), and the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC). Under the terms of this deal, this imposed a repayment liability of EUR 3 billion per year on the state. Joan Collins, TD (the appellant) took judicial review proceedings, asserting that this was subject to section 6 of the 2008 Act, which was above the power of the Minister for Finance, and it was unconstitutional for the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) to approve this expenditure for the Minister.

It also establishes that the issue the Basque Government wanted to raise, the possibility of changing the Basque Autonomous Community's relationship with the rest of Spain, is something the Spanish would have to decide on, not Basques on their own. The ruling at no time acknowledges the existence of the Basques, who are quoted in reported style (claimed by the appellant), as opposed to the Spanish nation. Ibarretxe declared he respected the court ruling, while adding that the court was "acting for political reasons disguised in a legal veneer". He subsequently called on the Basque people and its political parties to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to take Spain to task over the court decision.

Another union, the Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association, objected to the registration of the NSW union and the issue was referred to the High Court.It is not clear from the judgement who the appellant union covered in addition to State railway employees and they did not take any part in the argument of the appeal. Higgins who appeared for the respondents,While a member of Parliament, Higgins, like Isaacs, maintained a practice as a barrister. in arguing that the Act was valid, relied not only on the conciliation and arbitration power, but also submitted that railways were vital to interstate trade and commerce and as such was an exercise of the trade and commerce power.

The statute allowing longevity pay to officers of the army, § 1262, Rev.Stat., declared that there should be allowed and paid to all officers below the rank of brigadier general ten percent of their current yearly pay for every term of five years' service, but it did not restrict the increased pay to officers in active service. The point on which the case turned was the decision of the court, that an officer of the army, though retired, was still in the service, and he was included in the very terms of the statute allowing the increased pay. The statute on which the appellant relies excludes him, by its terms, from its benefits.

Afterwards Levin was blackballed by the Garrick Club, a favourite resort of both lawyers and journalists, when his application for membership came up. On 30 July 1998, the Court of Appeal quashed Derek Bentley's conviction on the basis of Goddard's misdirection to the jury which, according to Lord Bingham, "must [...] have driven the jury to conclude that they had little choice but to convict." He added that the summing-up of the case was "such as to deny the appellant [Bentley] the fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen". Bingham also, however, acknowledged that Goddard was "one of the outstanding criminal judges of the century", and underlined the change in social standards between 1953 and 1998.

However, in Jeyaretnam's appeal against being struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, the Privy Council recorded its "deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty." Due to the course taken by the criminal proceedings, the Privy Council lacked power to reverse Jeyaretnam's conviction and his "only prospect of redress ... will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore": Jeyaretnam J.B. v. The Law Society of Singapore [1988] S.L.R. [Singapore Law Reports] 1 at p. 17, para. 59.

In waiting so long, she rendered the Statements undiscoverable. The Court waived this argument as it was not brought up at the district level, and affirmed the district ruling. Furthermore, The College Network opined that Moore should have been able to discover the "Moore Statements" when interviewing Joel Cromer. The Court denied this argument on the basis it was not discoverable until December 2007, given the defendants' claim “a person interviewing for a job would not start disparaging former employers due to the negative impression it would create at a job interview.” As to the second condition, the plaintiff-appellant claimed that Moore and Moore Educational Publishers had no way of determining whether the defamatory statements were objectively verifiable.

Each seeks to prove to the higher court that the result they desired was the just result. Precedent and case law figure prominently in the arguments. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must prove that the lower court committed reversible error, that is, an impermissible action by the court acted to cause a result that was unjust, and which would not have resulted had the court acted properly. Some examples of reversible error would be erroneously instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case, permitting seriously improper argument by an attorney, admitting or excluding evidence improperly, acting outside the court's jurisdiction, injecting bias into the proceeding or appearing to do so, juror misconduct, etc.

The Townsend case still elicits a certain amount of interest in the Ruislip area, albeit on a limited scale. Unofficial enquiries and research are still undertaken by those who have developed an interest in it, including the appellant in the FOI case above. Though these have failed to unearth any major new pieces of evidence, a number of things have come to light. Correspondence in the 1990s with the daughter of the principal investigating officer in the case revealed that the original Metropolitan Police enquiry team in 1954 did indeed express frustration at the apparent unwillingness of the USAF base commander at South Ruislip Air Station to permit his men to be interviewed.

The majority decided that those accusations had 'revealed a capacity on the part of the complainant to make a complaint of a sexual nature to a person in authority about a member of her family'. The appellant was found to have co-operated fully with the police investigation, and to have consistently denied the allegations against him. He gave evidence on oath denying the allegations, and was found to have not been discredited in 'any way' by cross-examination. Character evidence had been led on the appellant's behalf, including from people who had, with full knowledge of the allegations made against the complainant, permitted children to remain overnight at the appellant's home.

During the trial, all of the defendants and both defense attorneys had been cited for contempt and sentenced to jail, but those convictions were also overturned on appeal. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the personal nature of the conduct at issue required all of the contempt charges to be tried before another judge, and that each appellant whose sentence exceeded six months was entitled to a jury trial on the charge. In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1972). The contempt charges were retried before a different judge, who found Dellinger, Rubin, Hoffman, and Kunstler guilty of some of the charges, but did not sentence any of them to jail or fines.

In Rumpff's view, this was > not merely the strongly worded but justified condemnation of the indignant > censor, but rather a hyperbole, exaggerating beyond permissible limits the > nature and effect of the crime, and minimising the personality of the > offender and the effect that punishment might have on the offender. The > over-emphasis of the effect of the appellant's crimes, and the > underestimation of the person of the appellant, constitutes, in my view, a > misdirection.540E-F. This misdirection entitled the court to set aside the sentence imposed. The court outlined its duties in imposing a sentence of its own. There were three primary considerations: # the crime; # the offender; and # the interests of society.540G.

An appellant in person is someone who by their own choice, or because their former counsel is criticised and has withdrawn, is conducting their own appeal at a Crown Court or at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The number of appellants who choose to do this are exceptionally small, mainly due to the inherent risks involved, appellants who serve a custodial sentence can have part of that sentence ordered to be served again if the court is of the view that the application is without merit. They must also understand highly complex court procedures, prepare detailed legal paperwork and orally argue a full legal appeal case in front of three High Court judges and a full court.

If no appeals panel was designated, then the district court itself would hear the appeals. In January 1980, the plaintiff/appellant in this matter, Northern Pipeline Construction Co. (Northern), filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. Two months later, in March 1980, Northern brought suit in the bankruptcy court against defendant/appellee Marathon Pipe Line Co. (Marathon) for breach of contract and warranty, misrepresentation, coercion, and duress. Marathon moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 unconstitutionally conferred Article III powers on judges who lacked the career protections and political independence of Article III judges.

The appellant did not contend that the appellees infringe the first claim of the reissued patent. He based his demand for relief on the alleged infringement of the second claim only. The proper construction of this claim was that it covered an automatic valve in combination with a contrivance consisting of a pinhole and pin, by which the valve may be raised from its seat, so as to leave the valve hole permanently open, or by which the valve may be rigidly closed upon its seat, making a closed or plug valve. The evidence showed that Bailey was not the first to conceive the idea of a device for opening or closing rigidly an automatic valve.

The court, had it been sitting as a court of first instance, would have imposed a sentence strikingly different from the sentence imposed in the court a quo. In the circumstances of the case, having regard to the extent of the appellant's emotional disintegration, and the fact that he was acting at the time under circumstances of severely diminished responsibility, a sentence of correctional supervision would be appropriate.570f–g. Deterrence, either of the appellant or of others, was not an important factor, having regard to the highly unusual concatenation of events, and the extremely remote possibility of a recurrence. Neither was the case one which was clamant for retribution.572c–d.

John left Portugal for Aquitaine, and he remained in that province until he returned to England in November 1389. This effectively kept him off the scene while England endured the major political crisis of the conflict between Richard II and the Lords Appellant, who were led by John of Gaunt's younger brother Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. Only four months after his return to England, in March 1390, Richard II formally invested Gaunt with the Duchy of Aquitaine, thus providing him with the overseas territory he had long desired. However he did not immediately return to the province, but remained in England and mainly ruled through seneschals as an absentee duke.

On the other hand if you in fact believe the complainant totally, then he is guilty as charged. On these instructions the jury returned a guilty verdict. The issue of the appeal was whether "the erroneous recharge, viewed in the context of the charge as a whole and the short time that elapsed between the main charge and the recharge, could be said to have left the jury with any doubt that if they had a reasonable doubt they must acquit." The judge erred in the short recharge in that he characterized the core issue to be determined by the jury as to whether they believed the complainant or whether they believed the appellant.

An appeal from the Circuit Court may be taken to the Court of Appeals of Virginia in limited cases (domestic relations and certain administrative matters), but appeals of general civil judgments are directed to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Virginia Supreme Court. An appeal may only be taken from a decision to which the appealing party objected with reasonable certainty at the time that the decision was made. In order to perfect an appeal, the appellant must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Circuit Court within thirty days of the appealable judgment or decree. A post-judgment motion does not extend the time for an appeal unless the Circuit Court has suspended the judgment.

The party filing the appeal – called the petitioner or appellant, who is attempting to convince the appellate court to overturn the lower court decision – is responsible for submitting his brief first. The responding party – the respondent or appellee, who is satisfied with the lower decision – then files a reply brief within a specified time. Depending on the local rules of procedure, the court may allow or even require the parties to then file additional replies to the opposing party's briefs, multiplying the back-and-forth responses of the parties. Depending on local rules, the court may then decide the case purely based on the submitted briefs or may hear oral argument by the parties.

Thus, a crime may be committed even without the actual meeting taking place and without the child being involved in the meeting (for example, if a police officer has taken over the contact and pretends to be that child). In R v T (2005) EWCA Crim 2681, the appellant, aged 43, had pretended to befriend a nine-year-old girl, but had done very little with her before she became suspicious and reported his approaches. He had a number of previous convictions (including one for rape) and was described as a "relentless, predatory paedophile". The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of eight years' imprisonment with an extended license period of two years.

It was held the injustice flowed from the fraudulent actions of the respondent inducing the appellant into an invalid marriage. However, legal marital status is a matter of importance not just to the parties to the marriage and their family, but for the world at large. An invalid marriage could not be made valid when it was void from the very beginning. Denham J, in delivering her judgment made her conclusion in light of the decision set out in Gaffney v Gaffney[1975] I.R. 133 where it was established "that estoppel may not be used, to change a person's status when that has not occurred, to prevent a party demonstrating that a foreign divorce decree was given without jurisdiction".

The Crimes Act 1961 and Criminal Procedure Act 2011 also contain both substantive and procedural provisions relevant to criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal. An appeal or application for leave to appeal must be dealt with by way of a hearing involving oral submissions unless the judge or court making the decision on the mode of hearing determines that the appeal or application can be fairly dealt with on the papers. If the appellant is in custody he or she is not entitled to be present at a hearing involving oral submissions unless there is a legislative right to be present, or the Court of Appeal grants leave. Audio-visual links are often used by the court.

The Court recognized that the Appellant has a right to apply to the court as section 6 A of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 says: "(i) Where the father and mother of an infant have not married each other, the Court may on the application of the father, by order appoint him to be guardian of the infant." The Supreme Court ruled that under Irish law the lesbian couple was not a family. Furthermore, the Court stated that the High Court had made a mistake in ruling that they were not a "de facto family" for the purpose of the law. The court rejected the applicability of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Agricola (written ) recounts the life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, an eminent Roman general and Tacitus' father-in-law; it also covers, briefly, the geography and ethnography of ancient Britain. As in the Germania, Tacitus favorably contrasts the liberty of the native Britons with the tyranny and corruption of the Empire; the book also contains eloquent polemics against the greed of Rome, one of which, that Tacitus claims is from a speech by Calgacus, ends by asserting that Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. (To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. —Oxford Revised Translation).

The justification for this rule is that it would be unfair for a person to be judged on an issue based on information obtained by an adjudicator which is unknown to that person. In Re Low Fook Cheng Patricia (1998),Re Low Fook Cheng Patricia (a solicitor) [1998] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 214, H.C. (Singapore). a lawyer appealed to set aside the penalty for misconduct imposed on her by the Law Society of Singapore. The appeal was based on the ground that the chairman of the Inquiry Committee had contacted a witness to enquire if the witness could assist the committee in its inquiry, but this was not made known to the appellant.

The appellant was the American Public Health Association, which wanted to force Earl Butz, the then United States Secretary of Agriculture, to treat Salmonella as an adulterant in food. > As plaintiffs in the District Court our appellants alleged in their > complaint that the Secretary of Agriculture was violating certain provisions > of the Wholesome Meat Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., and the Poultry > Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq. Specifically, they alleged > that the Secretary was wrongfully refusing to affix to meat and poultry > products, inspected by the Department of Agriculture, labels containing > handling and preparation instructions to protect the consumer against food > poisoning caused by salmonellae and other bacteria.

The appellant, L, obtained a job as a playground assistant. In connection with her employment, the police were required to provide her with an enhanced criminal records certificate (ECRC) in accordance with Section 115 of the Police Act 1997 (the 1997 Act). ECRCs are issued by the Secretary of State, and Section 115(7) of the 1997 Act requires the chief officer of every relevant police force to provide any information which might be relevant in considering a person's suitability for a position and which ought to be included in the certificate. In the ECRC, the police disclosed to the school that she had been accused of neglecting her child and non-cooperation with social services.

The magistrate said: "Had I accepted this evidence (which I did not) it would have been argued that the allegation that she had 'carried on an unauthorised demonstration by herself ...' could not have been made out, and furthermore (in my view incorrectly) that it would provide a defence by saying that as Mr Haw is safe from prosecution anyone who joins him is also safe." The question posed by the magistrate was: "Was it lawful under section 6 (1) HRA to convict the appellant?" The Administrative Court held that SOCPA was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (specifically, Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly)), and that Tucker's conviction was therefore lawful.

The Court of Appeal also held that the mandatory death penalty does not violate Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which states: "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." In its opinion, the differentia used in the MDA to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed for trafficking in diamorphine (heroin) cannot be said to be purely arbitrary, and bears a rational relation to the social object of the Act which is to prevent the growth of drug addiction in Singapore by stamping out the illicit drug trade. Following this case, the appellant Yong Vui Kong unsuccessfully challenged the process by which the President grants clemency to convicted persons on the advice of the Cabinet.

On 4 October 2016, the National Evangelical Association of Belize's appeal of the case was rejected by the Chief Justice because the organization was not an original interested party to the case. In March 2018, the Catholic Church in Belize officially withdrew from the appeal, leaving the Government of Belize as the sole appellant to the decision on Section 53. With the Catholic Church withdrawal, recognition was given that sexual relations between consenting adults was fully legalized in Belize, as the partial appeal by the Government concerned only whether the anti-discrimination clause of the Constitution which referred to sex could be interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On 29 October 2018, the appellate court heard full arguments from both sides.

A group of magnates consisting of the king's uncle Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel, and Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick, became known as the Lords Appellant when they sought to impeach five of the king's favourites and restrain what was increasingly seen as tyrannical and capricious rule. Later they were joined by Henry Bolingbroke, the son and heir of John of Gaunt, and Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk. Initially, they were successful in establishing a commission to govern England for one year, but they were forced to rebel against Richard, defeating an army under Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, at the skirmish of Radcot Bridge. Richard was reduced to a figurehead with little power.

A term of the offer provided that the number of directors of the appellant should be increased to nine of whom five should be chosen by the new investor. At a meeting of the new board, Cropper, acting in compliance with a notice from the chairman that it was imperative that all officers of the company make full disclosure of their connection with other mining companies, disclosed his private interest in the companies developing the Dickson claims. However, at a subsequent meeting of the board he refused to comply with the chairman's request that he turn over his interest in them at cost. Thereupon a motion was passed rescinding Cropper's appointment as executive vice-president and as a member of the executive committee.

Also, in December 2008, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge, Justice Michael Adams, ruled to uphold a magistrate's decision that a pornographic cartoon parodying characters on The Simpsons (Bart and Lisa) was child pornography, because "[i]t follows that a fictional cartoon character, even one which departs from recognisable human forms in some significant respects, may nevertheless be the depiction of a person within the meaning of the Act." McEwen v. Simmons & Anor [2008 NSWSC 1292] The appellant, Alan John McEwan, was fined $3000 Aus ($3,170 US). Judge Adams explained the law was appropriate because cartoons could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children", also adding "A cartoon character might well constitute the depiction of such a person".

He and other aldermen were questioned before an assembly of Appelant lords in parliament; they were the same group of men who, under Brembre, had petitioned John of Gaunt against the duke's support of a pardon for John Northampton. Questioned as to whether Brembre could be supposed to have realised that his actions were treasonous, Exton is supposed to have replied that he "supposed he [Brembre] was aware rather than ignorant of them"—or, as May McKisack put, was "more likely to be guilty than not". Either way, it was this judgement that persuaded the Appellant Lords to condemn Brembre. Brembre's fate, then, had been sealed by Exton and "those that knew him best," however reluctantly they might have opined.

In April 1999, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for the Environment, Robert Hill, formally refused to pursue the World Heritage listing of Lake Eyre, instead allowing a mining company, BHP Billiton to commence mining operations. The appellant, Buzzacott, claimed that Downer's failure to pursue World Heritage listing amounted to genocide against his people. Nulyarimma v Thompson was heard in the Federal Court of Australia and was decided in favour of the Government.Nulyarimma v Thompson [1999] FCA 1192 Federal Court of Australia judgment, Austlii, Accessed 8 June 2007 Buzzacott initiated a peace walk from Lake Eyre to the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney,Walking the Land for our Ancient Rights: Interview with Kevin Buzzacott Indigenous Law Bulletin [2000] ILB 6, Austlii.

Tsatsi claimed damages for defamation from National Education, Health and Allied Workers' Union (NEHAWU), alleging vicarious liability for certain defamatory statements contained in a report prepared by its branch secretary (the second appellant in this case) and distributed to members in attendance at a NEHAWU general meeting held at the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court. The branch secretary was the senior interpreter at the court, and Tsatsi its manageress. After the meeting, certain court staffers, unaffiliated with NEHAWU, came into possession of copies of the report, and thus of two allegedly defamatory statements: # that Tsatsi "embraces fraudsters"; and # that she "unleashes unprecedented harassment" upon court staff. The appellants, NEHAWU and its branch secretary, denied that the statements were defamatory; in addition, they claimed qualified privilege.

She worked as a judge throughout Turkey, and in 1945, she was appointed to the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) as its first female member. She decided many crucial cases. During the politically turbulent years of the Democrat Party administration (1950–1960) in Turkey, she was forced to retire from her post because of her steadfast refusal to bend the principles of law to serve the political party in power. She successfully challenged her forced retirement in court, and was reinstated to the appellant bench in 1963 with full honors and compensation. Judge Ruacan was a fearless advocate of the principles of the law and was also an untiring defender of women's rights, following Atatürk’s Kemalist ideology throughout her life.

As soon as an accused is brought to the police station, and a charge laid against him, a new decision has to be taken by the police: whether he should be detained or not. Even if the arrest and detention up to that stage were unlawful, Wessels continued, the detention after the decision to prosecute can be lawful, if the decision to prosecute was lawful: that is to say, taken bona fide on reasonable grounds. Only when the police act mala fide, without reasonable and probable cause, can an action for unlawful detention against the appellant succeed for the time that the respondent was held in custody in the police cells.See Donono v Minister of Prisons 1973 (4) SA at 262.

Based upon the above points, deception appears to be a common factor. It is due to this that Mr Seymour, in his position in the bank, was held liable in the High Court and disqualified from the management of any company for nine years. Based upon the judgment of Macken J of the Supreme Court, however, "the appellant was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time for the position he was taking over".[2011] IESC 45 This statement of the judge is further reinforced by the point made in relevant commentary of the Supreme Court decision; Mr Seymour had worked in the industry for 42 years and has never before had a complaint filed against him.

An off-duty policeman, Constable Lionel Siljeur, while pursuing persons who had attempted to rob him, shot the respondent, Allister Roy Luiters, an innocent third party, thereby rendering him a tetraplegic. It appeared from the evidence that, in pursuing the would-be robbers, Siljeur had used his firearm in a manner which was contrary both to the standing orders of the SAPS and to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.Act 51 of 1977. The respondent succeeded in an action for damages in the High Court on the basis that, at the time of the incident, Siljeur had been acting within the course and scope of his employment as a member of the SAPS, making the appellant vicariously liable to the respondent.

It was not until the king died, in 1327, following a coup, that she was able to recover the Lordship. At the end of the 14th century, Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, Aline's then successor, became Duke of Norfolk (though he was later banished, but not attainted, for his part in the coup against Richard II by the Lords Appellant). Following the death of Thomas' grandson, John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, his lands were entrusted to the care of William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke, on account of the young age of John's son (and heir). Already hugely wealthy and powerful, in 1468 the Duke was content to convert Herbert's custody of Gower into permanent possession, which the king confirmed the following year.

In the appeal decision, cited as R (on the application of Lancashire County Council) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) the Court overturned the previous judgments. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled against the registration of lands in a separate case in Surrey involving the 2.9 hectare Leach Grove Wood at Leatherhead, owned by the National Health Service. After publication of the decision in the Moorside Fields case, Lancashire County Council told the news media that the Court had "protect[ed] this land for future generations". In effect, the Supreme Court decision left lands owned by public authorities by their statutory powers open to development for any purpose that they deem to be appropriate.

Morris v. Territory, 1909 OK CR 18, 1 Okl.Cr. 617, 99 P. 760 And he missed no occasion to remind the bar of the solemn promise of equality and evenhanded justice under law: > It is true that appellant is only a poor washerwoman and is without friends, > without influence and without money, and is dependent upon the charity of > her attorneys for her defense; but she is a human being, and her rights are > as sacred in the eyes of the law as though she were the wealthiest and most > influential society favorite in Oklahoma. It is the duty of this court to > see that the poor and friendless are fully protected in the enjoyment of the > rights given them by the law . . .

The court's decision on the application has not been published but in a letter seen by BBC Scotland, FCO minister Kim Howells says it has decided to appoint a special defender. In a BBC interview, Hans Köchler criticised the development as "intolerable" and "detrimental to the rule of law." Köchler said: > "In no country can the situation be allowed where the accused or the > appellant is not free to have his own defence team, and instead someone is > imposed upon him." On 15 October 2008, five Scottish judges decided unanimously to reject a submission by the Crown Office that the scope of Megrahi's second appeal should be limited to the specific grounds of appeal that were identified by the SCCRC in June 2007.

The kingdom of England was in the midst of the Hundred Years' War with the kingdom of France, and the English had been consistently losing territory to the French since 1369. The losses were a politically sensitive topic and led to a shift in the English position after the death of Edward III, with his successor Richard II favoring peace while many of the landed nobility wanted to continue the war. The Wonderful Parliament in 1386 blamed the young King Richard's advisers for the military failures and accused them of misappropriating funds intended for the war. They authorized a commission of nobles known as the Lords Appellant to effectively take over management of the kingdom and act as Richard's regents.

The respondent, Claude Théberge, a painter with a well-established international reputation, assigned by way of contract the right to publish reproductions, cards and other stationery products representing certain of his works to a publisher. The appellant art gallery, Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain, purchased cards, photo-lithographs and posters embodying various of the artist's works from the publisher, and then transferred the images to canvas. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain bought the rights to make a limited number of paper copies of Théberge's paintings in order to create posters from them. The process used involved lifting the ink that was used in printing a paper poster and transferring it entirely onto a canvas, leaving the poster blank and keeping the number of reproductions constant.

As a cultural reference, Goldstein sent an envelope to a friend of his containing a small quantity of salt. Some of this salt escaped from the envelope at a postal sorting office, which was closed as a precaution so that tests could be carried out to determine whether the material spilt was dangerous. The Lords accepted that a significant number of people were disadvantaged by the closure of the sorting office and the loss of delivery on that day, but held that the appellant did not have the appropriate mens rea because he did not know or reasonably should have known (because the means of knowledge were available to him) that the salt would escape in the sorting office or in the course of postal delivery.

Prior to the vote on the September 1964 tax increase proposal, various newspaper articles appeared in the local paper which were attributed to the District 205 Teachers' Organization. Those articles urged passage of the proposal and stated that failure to pass the increase would result in a decline in the quality of education afforded children in the district's schools. Also, a letter making the same point from the superintendent of schools was published in the paper two days before the election, and copies of the letter were given to the voters the following day. After the proposal failed, Marvin L. Pickering, appellant and a teacher in the District, wrote a letter to the editor in response to the material from the Teachers' Organization and the superintendent.

The case Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 is comparable on its commentary on reasonable foreseeability to Chapman v Hearse. The obiter dicta from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 argued that a reasonable man, concerned for the safety of others would avoid the risk of putting others in harms way.Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961). In relation to Chapman v Hearse, it contextualises how the appellant should have considered the implications of his actions on others and whether the end result of the appellants negligence (the death of Dr Cherry) was truly reasonably foreseeable.

Justice McIntyre, writing for a unanimous Court, entered a conviction on the basis that even if the accused was not subjectively aware that there was no consent, he was wilfully blind to the lack of consent. The culpability of wilful blindness is the accused’s refusal to inquire whether the complainant was consenting, when he was aware of the need for some inquiry, but decided not to inquire because he did not want to know the truth. Because the appellant was willfully blind to the consent of the complainant, the defense of mistake of fact cannot apply. An annotation by A. Manson (1985), 45 C.R. (3d) 194 criticizes McIntyre's decision pointing out that the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to hear issues of law.

Rather, since the impugned Act defines a spouse only in opposite sex terms, it "draws a clear distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples". To be discriminatory within the meaning of section 15 of the Charter, Cory J argued the distinction only had to be made on an enumerated or analogous ground protected by section 15. As such, the appellant did not have to prove the distinction on such a basis is irrelevant to the objective of the legislation. In this case, Cory J asserted there "can be no doubt that the distinction is related to the personal characteristic of sexual orientation": > It may be correct to say that being in a same-sex relationship is not > necessarily the defining characteristic of being homosexual.

On the other hand, the appellate court normally gives less deference to a lower court's decision on issues of law, and may reverse if it finds that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard. In some cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the lower decision was rendered was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, or may convince the higher court to order a new trial on the basis that evidence earlier sought was concealed or only recently discovered. In the case of new evidence, there must be a high probability that its presence or absence would have made a material difference in the trial. Another issue suitable for appeal in criminal cases is effective assistance of counsel.

In the case of William Walls v. the Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock, the High Court of Justiciary held on appeal, in an opinion delivered by Lord Carloway, that: :"the song calls upon persons of Irish descent, who are living in Scotland, to go back to the land of their ancestors, namely Ireland [...] they are racist in calling upon people native to Scotland to leave the country because of their racial origins. This is a sentiment which, once more, many persons will find offensive." The appellant, who was convicted for breach of the peace racially aggravated and aggravated by religious prejudice having sung the Famine Song and made a number of other remarks during a football match, had his appeal denied and his conviction upheld.

The Tribunal considered a theory—advanced by the appellant—that the killer was one Count Francesco Carlo Dalatri, an Italian nobleman of mixed English and Italian parentage, who had been living in the London area at the time of the murder. Suggestions about the Count's possible involvement seem to have originated in an interview with his former landlady, broadcast a few years earlier on John Peel's popular Home Truths programme on BBC Radio 4. In the programme it had been alleged that the Count - who was known as "Frank" to his friends - was in the habit of travelling on the London Underground late at night looking at other passengers. This had reportedly attracted the attention of the Police on at least one occasion.

An appeal against conviction was made to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. That appeal was dismissed. Sully J, one of the three judges presiding, said of the appeal; > 'For my own part, I would say at once that, were it permissible Kingdom, I > would favour upholding the present appeal upon the ground now being > discussed. I would take that view because, broadly speaking, I have in > purely subjective terms a feeling of anxiety and discomfort about the > verdicts of guilty that were returned against the present appellant' The other two justices, Cripps JA and Finlay J, agreed with Sully J in dismissing the appeal; but dissociated themselves from his expressed feeling of anxiety or discomfort.

On February 23, 1993, in Walter McMillian v. State in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, all judges concurred that "the state suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence that had been requested by the defense, thus denying the appellant due process of law, requiring the reversal of his conviction and death sentence, and the remand of the case for a new trial." D.A. Pearson had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to McMillian's attorneys, including records from the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility and Myers' June 3 and August 27 statements. Further investigation revealed that McMillian's truck, supposedly seen by witnesses at the scene of the crime, had not been converted to a "low- rider" until six months after the crime took place.

Richard responded by summoning Woodstock and the other Lords Appellant to the Tower of London; all three refused. This was open dissent, and both Richard and the Appellants knew the implications of such defiance. According to the author of the Eulogium historiarum, Richard asked Woodstock whether his companions were willing to take arms against him, to which the Duke replied: "we do not rebel or arm ourselves against the King except in order to instruct him". Pushed further by Richard, who protested that Parliament did not have the right to command a King even in the case of "the meanest kitchen boy", the Duke darkly reminded his nephew of his own standing: "But I am the son of a king".

When he defaulted, the bank sought to enforce its rights under the loan and mortgage agreements. Because Mr Ford was illiterate (though capable of signing his name), suffered from a "significant congenital intellectual impairment" and had no understanding of the particulars of the agreement or consequences of non-payment, the judge at appeal found that he had been the pawn of his son throughout, and "his mind was a mere channel through which the will of his son operated." The Court dismissed the argument that the appellant had been careless as that would presume that he was capable of turning his mind to the issue and making judgements. It ruled that Mr Ford lacked the legal capacity, and therefore contract was void for non est factum.

The king's uncle Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel, and Thomas de Beauchamp, 12th Earl of Warwick, became known as the Lords Appellant when they sought to impeach five of the king's favourites and restrain what was increasingly seen as tyrannical and capricious rule. Later they were joined by Henry Bolingbroke, the son and heir of John of Gaunt, and Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk. Initially, they were successful in establishing a commission to govern England for one year, but they were forced to rebel against Richard, defeating an army under Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, at the skirmish of Radcot Bridge. Richard was reduced to a figurehead with little power.

In ParkingEye, the appellant, Mr Beavis, was the owner and driver of a vehicle which he parked in a retail shopping car park adjacent to Chelmsford railway station. The owner of the retail site and car park, British Airways Pension Fund (BAPF), had contracted ParkingEye Ltd, the respondent, to provide "a traffic space maximisation scheme". The scheme involved the erection at the entrance to and throughout the car park of prominent notices, including the statements "2 hour max stay" and "Parking limited to 2 hours", coupled with the further notice "Failure to comply ... will result in a Parking Charge of £85". Underneath, it also stated: "By parking within the car park, motorists agree to comply with the car park regulations".

California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885), involved a bill that was filed by the appellant against the appellee complaining that the latter was infringing on a letters patent granted to one John J. Schillinger, and which had been assigned for the State of California to the complainant.. The patent was for an improvement in concrete pavement was originally issued July 19, 1870, and reissued May 2, 1871. The improvement, as described in the reissued patent, consisted in laying the pavement in detached blocks separated from each other by strips of tar paper or other suitable material so as to prevent the blocks from adhering to each other. As stated in the specification: The case of Wilson v.

The Court was replaced the following year, when the General Assembly passed an act providing for separate Courts of Appeals for cases in law and equity. The Act also provided that all the law judges and equity judges would sit en banc as a Court of Errors to hear appeals of constitutional questions, when the court was divided, or when any two judges certified the case. These new Courts of Appeals suffered the same defects that the previous appellate bodies did: in both law and equity cases, the appellant was disadvantaged by the fact that the trial judge also sat on the appellate body. The Court of Appeals was reestablished in 1859, again with three judges (this time, one chief judge and two associate judges).

In such an appeal, the appellant feels that some error has been made in his trial, necessitating an appeal. A matter of importance is the basis on which such an appeal might be filed: generally appeals as a matter of right may only address issues which were originally raised in trial (as evidenced by documentation in the official record). Any issue not raised in the original trial may not be considered on appeal and will be considered waived via estoppel. A convenient test for whether a petition is likely to succeed on the grounds of error is confirming that #a mistake was indeed made #an objection to that mistake was presented by counsel and #that mistake negatively affected the defendant's trial.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6–3 decision issued by Justice White, balancing between the legitimate expectation of privacy of the individual, even a child, and the school's interest in maintaining order and discipline, held for the appellant (the state). According to school officials, they do require a "reasonable suspicion" to perform a search. Her possession of any cigarettes was relevant to whether or not she was being truthful, and since she had been caught in the bathroom and taken directly to the office, it was reasonable to assume she had the cigarettes in her purse. Thus, the vice- principal had reasonable cause to suspect a school rule had been broken, and more than just a "hunch" to search the purse.

The issues surrounding the case were initially raised in the UK Parliament by Maria Fyfe MP for the Maryhill Constituency in Glasgow in series of debates in the British House of Commons.() Duff was sentenced to three years imprisonment in February 2001 after pleading guilty to one charge of fraud, and one charge of reckless endangerment (15 Months for the first charge and 21 months for the second charge to run consecutively). In June 2001 Duff appealed his sentence to the High Courts of the Justiciary in Scotland, although rejecting all the arguments put forward by his defense they agreed on a legal technicality that his sentence should be reduced to two years. The appellant judges did not disagree or dispute the findings of the original sentence.().

Roger and Robert Corbet together enlisted in Arundel's affinity around 1405, coming to be known as esquiers de count d'Arundell. Arundel had lost his father, Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel in Richard II's purge of the Lords Appellant in 1397 and this had welded himself and his uncle, Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Henry IV's new regime, giving him great power and influence nationally as well as regionally. In 1407 Roger was one of four of Arundel's entourage who granted a house in Shrewsbury, known as Ireland Hall, to Shrewsbury Abbey: the other three were his brother Robert, their aunt Joan's husband, John Darras, and William Ryman of Sussex . The transaction was probably on Arundel's behalf.

Richard II of England. Sir John Cokayne first appearance in the history of his region was as a bandit leader in the reign of Richard II. On 26 February 1388, while John of Gaunt was abroad and the Lords Appellant, including Gaunt's son, Henry Bolingbroke, were at the height of their power, Cockayne's name headed the list of a group of young landed gentry accused of "divers enormous offences in the county of Derby, against the ministers, officers and servants of the king's uncle John, duke of Lancaster."Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1385–1389, p. 463. It was alleged that they had set an ambush to kill Gaunt's officials. A substantial party of Midlands landowners, headed by Robert de Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Chartley, was deputed to bring Cockayne and his gang to justice.

The appeal turned on whether the Witwatersrand Local Division (WLD) had had the jurisdiction to entertain an action by the appellant against the respondent for the payment of certain sums of money and ancillary relief. In particular, it had to be decided whether the respondent had, on 18 April 1995 (the date of service of summons), been a person "residing [...] in" the area of jurisdiction of the WLD within the meaning of that phrase in section 19(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act. Both a single judge and a full bench of the court, on appeal, had decided against the appellant's standpoint that the respondent had resided within the jurisdiction of the WLD at the relevant time. The respondent was a South African citizen involved in corporate finance consulting.

The General Court heard appeals of decisions from the county courts, as well as decisions the General Court had issued under its original jurisdiction.Bruce. 1. pp. 681-82. Originally, the court could hear any appeal, but in 1647 the House of Burgesses passed a law restricting its civil appellate jurisdiction to cases involving an amount at controversy of at least ten pounds sterling or 1600 pounds of tobacco.Chitwood. p. 46. Appellants had to pay a penalty if the General Court upheld the original decision; originally, the appellant had to pay double the original damages, but this was eventually reduced to 115% of the original damages.Chitwood. p. 47. The court had no restrictions, however, on hearing appeals in cases in which no monetary damages were sought.Bruce. 1. p. 686.

Judge Grossberg also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding the different distinctions between male and female Indians, stating that he had difficulty fathoming how such alleged inequalities within different groups of Canadian society are necessarily offensive to the Canadian Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact, Judge Grossberg suggests that it is a laudable point in Canadian history that the appellant is no longer an Indian, since she now she enjoys the same rights and freedoms of all Canadians; a feat which he construes as consistent to the recommendations of the "Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada". To that end Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act, the Judge concludes, is not inoperative in the face of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

On behalf of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Tomlinson is the appellant in a Jamaican Court of Appeal matter challenging two local TV stations that refused to air an ad in which he appears that calls on Jamaicans to respect the rights of homosexuals. The TV stations refused to air the ad on the grounds that it would anger the island's powerful churches and could also be seen to be aiding and abetting an illegal activity. Although the Supreme Court ruled against Maurice's claim, they did acknowledge the importance of the case and refused an application from the TV stations that Maurice pay their legal costs. The court also clarified for the first time that gay Jamaicans have all the rights of other citizens under the 2011 Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

In the mid-14th century, the Nevilles became involved in naval defence as well, holding the post of Admiral of the North.Young, Making of the Neville Family, 119-24 During this period they also began to be appointed to high office at court and in the Church: the victor of Neville's Cross served as Steward of the Royal Household, and on his death was succeeded in the office by his eldest son John. John's brother Alexander Neville became Archbishop of York and was a close advisor of Richard II. As such, he was prosecuted, along with Richard's other leading adherents, when the disgruntled Lords Appellant seized power in 1386–9. He suffered the confiscation of his property but, as a clergyman, he escaped the death sentences imposed on his colleagues.

She believes that if she could set a precedent ruling that a man was unfairly discriminated against on the basis of sex, that precedent could be cited in cases challenging laws that discriminate against womenand she believes that an appellate court composed entirely of male judges would find it easier to identify with a male appellant. Ruth meets with Mel Wulf of the ACLU to try to enlist their help, but he turns her down. Ruth flies to Denver to meet with Moritz, who agrees to let the Ginsburgs and ACLU represent him pro bono after Ruth convinces him that millions of people could potentially benefit. After reading the draft of the brief, Dorothy Kenyon, who was cold to the idea at first, meets with Wulf in his office and convinces him to sign on.

These supportive funds ceased to be available about that time and the organizations, with approximately 450 employees, including the respondents and 16 other non-citizens, were absorbed by the Manpower Career and Development Agency (MCDA) of HRA. The appellant Administrator advised the transferees that they would be employed by the city. (Section 45 of the New York Civil Service Law, applicable to employees of a private institution acquired by the State or a public agency, contains a restriction, similar to that in § 53 (1), against the employment of an alien in a position classified in the competitive class.) The respondents in fact were so employed in MCDA. In February, however, they were informed that they were ineligible for employment by the city and that they would be dismissed under the statutory mandate of § 53 (1).

Before the modern child welfare agency and child support enforcement, prosecutions for seduction often set the stage for determinations of paternity and a father's responsibility to support illegitimate children. To Furman's southern sensibilities, seduction of the innocent woman and abandonment of her in shame (and frequently with child) were crimes so heinous that no modern punishment was truly fit to answer them. Affirming a conviction for rape of a previously chaste female (a type of statutory rape by seduction), and a six-year prison term, Judge Furman saw the crime as one of Biblical proportions. > Appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and admitted that after > he was arrested he did go to the father of the prosecuting witness and offer > to marry her, and that his offer of marriage was declined.

Given the background of the appellant's case, the Navy could not be faulted for not returning the appellant to his original post. In the particular circumstances, however, the law clearly placed a duty on the employer to consult fully with the employee affected and to share information to enable him to make informed decisions. The navy, noted Cameron, had not fulfilled that responsibility: Explaining the job offer was anything but superfluous, since it was an entirely new position, and in addition the appellant's subjective condition of suspicion, demoralisation and depression, which was evident to those dealing with him, was materially relevant to how the navy was required by fairness to deal with him. His condition meant that an unexplained offer of a new post was likely to be rejected.

To start an appeals procedure the appellant had to petition the Hof for a mandement van appel (writ of appeal, comparable to a writ of Certiorari) and to give a bond (in case the appel would be rejected and a boete van fol appel or "fine for false appeal" had to be paid). In case of reformatie no bond need be given. The procedure was in large respect the same as the rolprocedure in first instance, except for the following differences: firstly, not only the other party was summoned, but also the judges who had made the decree or verdict of which appeal (the reason for this was that the judges could be asked to explain their reasoning). The latter were called geintihimeerden, but this term was often also (incorrectly) used for the opposing party.

Brown v Mbhense and Another (2008) is an important case in the South African law of lease. The respondent instituted an action in the Land Claims Court for an order declaring her to be a "labour tenant" as defined in the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act. The appellant was the owner of the farm in question and did not oppose the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff's claim succeeded in the court a quo, and the defendant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which held that to gauge the existence of a labour-tenancy agreement in the technical and precise manner akin to that applicable to usual residential or commercial tenancies was far too restrictive an approach, and one that went against the objective and general tenor of the Act.

Also in 2016, Pannick successfully represented Gina Miller in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, an action against the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on whether approval by Parliament was required before the Prime Minister could initiate proceedings under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union to take the UK out of the European Union. Pannick successfully led the team working on behalf of Gina Miller in R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent), arguing against the legality of the Government's prorogation of Parliament in September 2019. In the ruling on the morning of 24 September 2019, the UK supreme court unanimously judged that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson had given unlawful advice to the Queen.

Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment, was a decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. The appellant, Stevens, had sold and installed modchips that circumvented the Sony PlayStation's copy protection mechanism. Sony argued that Stevens had knowingly sold or distributed a "circumvention device" which was capable of circumventing a "technological protection measure", contrary to s 116A of the Copyright Act. At first instance, the Federal Court (Sackville J) held that the relevant copy protection feature was not a "technological protection measure" and refused Sony's application for relief under s 116A.. Sony successfully appealed the primary judge's decision in the Full Court of the Federal Court.. The High Court then reversed the Full Court's decision, endorsing Sackville J's construction of the term "technological protection measure".

The hearing determined that the film indeed constituted religious bigotry and on February 16, 1951, the Commissioner of Education was ordered to rescind the picture's license. "Rossellini's Religious Films" The appellant brought the Board of Regents' decision to the New York courts for review, on the grounds that the statute "violates the First Amendment as a prior restraint upon freedom of speech and of the press," "that it is invalid under the same Amendment as a violation of the guaranty of separate church and state and as a prohibition of the free exercise of religion" and "that the term 'sacrilegious' is so vague and indefinite as to offend due process." The decision was upheld by the state courts, including the New York Court of Appeals. The decision was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Parliament is highly important in the context of later events, and has been described as "the worst political crisis of the reign to date" and a direct assault on the traditional principle that medieval kings governed by personal prerogative. It marks the first stage in an ongoing power struggle between the King and a set of magnates who became known as the Lords Appellant. On 19 November, Richard appointed his councillors in parliament as the Commons had requested; this was described as a "great and continual council," composed of eleven peers and three principal officials. They included the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, the Bishops Wickham and Brantingham, Abbot Morice of Waltham Abbey, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, and Lords Cobham, Scrope and Devereaux.

On October 11, 1986, the respondents sustained serious fire burns when the bus in which they were fare-paying passengers was attacked with petrol bombs. In an action instituted in a Provincial Division, in terms of section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, for damages for such injuries, the appellant, as defendant, pleaded that the injuries were not caused by nor arose out of the driving of the bus as intended in section 8(1). It was also denied that either the owner or the driver of the bus had been negligent. It appeared that, during the four days prior to the attack in question, thirteen buses had been stoned or petrol-bombed along the same part of the route taken by the bus, or in that vicinity.

Throughout the course of the submissions, judges — usually lawyers, academics, or actual judges — may ask questions, though in some competitions questions are reserved to the end of submissions. In larger competitions, teams have to participate in up to ten rounds; the knockout/elimination stages are usually preceded by a number of preliminary rounds to determine seeding (power seeding is often used). Teams almost always must switch sides (applicant/appellant/claimant on one side, and respondent on the other) throughout a competition, and, depending on the format of the moot, the moot problem usually remains the same throughout. The scores of the written submissions are taken into consideration for most competitions to determine qualification (whether for the competition or for the knockouts) and seeding, and sometimes even up to a particular knockout stage.

Appellants Herbert Aptheker and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn were native born citizens and residents of the United States and had held valid passports. Aptheker was editor of Political Affairs, the 'theoretical organ' of the Communist Party in the United States and appellant Flynn was chairman of the Party. On January 22, 1962, the Acting Director of the Passport Office notified appellants that their passports were revoked because the Department of State believed that their use of the passports would violate § 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 which provided that it was unlawful for any member of a Communist party to apply for or to renew a US passport or to use such a passport. Appellants requested and received hearings to review the revocations of their passports.

In England, Wales or Northern Ireland Leave (or permission) to appeal could be granted either by the court whose decision is appealed or the House of Lords itself. Leave to appeal is not a feature of the Scottish legal system and appeals proceeded when two Advocates certified the appeal as suitable. In criminal cases, the House of Lords could hear appeals from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the High Court of England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court but did not hear appeals from the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In addition to obtaining leave to appeal, an appellant also had to obtain a certificate from the lower court stating that a point of general public importance was involved.

On August 21, 1964, the president of appellant Webster Groves Trust Company wrote the Comptroller, advising him of Webster Groves' opposition to the granting of the charter and requesting a formal hearing on the application. By letter of August 27, 1964, the Deputy Comptroller agreed to discuss the matter, and a meeting was arranged to take place in Washington, D.C. on October 6, 1964. At this conference, the representatives of Webster Groves and another objecting bank met with a Deputy Comptroller. On behalf of the objecting banks, Webster Groves filed a written protest to the granting of the charter and requested that they be furnished a copy of the application and that a formal hearing be held for the purpose of crossexamining the applicant and presenting evidence in opposition to the charter.

CCRTF 93/1605/B It was submitted that if their client's invention was obvious, as held by the original Judge, such an idea would have been patented sooner. It was the "concept" of a personal stereo player that "changed the listening habits of the world", not the overall product design, which Pavel's team described as "window dressing"; a contention borne out by the "explosive success" of the Walkman. Lord Justice John Hobhouse, Lord Justice Brian Neill, and Lord Justice William Aldous disagreed with the appellant, adducing the Walkman's form factor, minimal operating power, and ability to reproduce high- quality sound at reasonable cost as key reasons for its appeal and popularity. "Although the Walkman was a great commercial success, the attempt to rely upon that success to support invention is fallacious".

For example, the appellant might have to file the notice of appeal with the appellate court, or with the court from which the appeal is taken, or both. Some courts have samples of a notice of appeal on the court's own web site. In New Jersey, for example, the Administrative Office of the Court has promulgated a form of notice of appeal for use by appellants, though using this exact form is not mandatory and the failure to use it is not a jurisdictional defect provided that all pertinent information is set forth in whatever form of notice of appeal is used.Jeffrey S. Mandel, New Jersey Appellate Practice (Gann Law Books) The deadline for beginning an appeal can often be very short: traditionally, it is measured in days, not months.

The complainant's evidence was found not to have been corroborated by anyone; and to have been contradicted by the first medical examiner. The month-long delay before the she made a complaint, and 'apparent equanimity' with which she was found to have conducted herself during the family barbecue the day following the alleged penetration on the 22nd; according to the court 'suggested the need for careful scrutiny of the allegations which she made against the appellant'. The court also cast aspersions on the complainant's credibility for a complaint she had made to a medical registrar 2 years prior (when she was 11). In that complaint she had alleged that her younger half- sister (then 8 years old) had tormented her by touching her genital area in an aggressive manner.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Cambridge House Law Centre's client in Kanu (Appellant) v Southwark London Borough Council. The case was significant regarding the rights of vulnerable homeless people to housing. The Court overturned previous case law and guidance and established that: # An authority’s duty to the homeless under Part VII Housing Act 1996 is not to be influenced or affected by the resources available to the authority. # The correct comparator when assessing whether someone is vulnerable for the reasons in s189 (1)(c ) is an ordinary person if made homeless. # Support from a third party can be taken into account when assessing whether a person is vulnerable but that needs to be applied with “considerable circumspection” and that the fact of support in itself is not enough.

The High Court had to answer whether the appellant's advertisement constituted a legitimate offer for sale (as the prosecution chose to prosecute only for the weaker of the three possible alleged facts), and whether the bird was not a close-ringed specimen bred in captivity under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 if it were possible to remove the ring from its leg. It was held that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell; therefore the offence with which the appellant was charged was not established. The judges also said that if the only issue were whether the bird was a close-ringed specimen under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, the magistrates' judgment would have been upheld. Ashworth J gave his judgment first.

Thompson had rented the flat from 1972 onwards. The law allows for succession in a tenancy agreement for spouses, those "living with him or her as a husband or wife", and members of one's family who have resided in the flat for at least two years before the tenant's death. The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Fitzpatrick's initial appeal, citing the precedent of Harrogate Borough Council v Simpson where the Court of Appeal determined that "living together as husband and wife" did not extend to a homosexual couple. The Court of Appeal decision expressed considerable sympathy for the appellant, citing his selfless dedication to caring for his partner for many years, but stated that it was the job of Parliament to change the law to extend protected tenancy succession rights to same-sex couples.

The king took him to Ireland in 1394 and soon afterwards sent him to arrange a peace with France and his marriage with Isabella, daughter of Charles VI. Mowbray was likely instrumental in the murder, in 1397, of the king's uncle (and senior Lord Appellant), Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, who was imprisoned at Calais, where Nottingham was Captain. In gratitude, on 29 September 1397, the king created him Duke of Norfolk, granting him Arundel's lands in Surrey and Sussex. In 1398, Norfolk quarrelled with Henry of Bolingbroke, 1st Duke of Hereford (later King Henry IV), apparently due to mutual suspicions stemming from their roles in the conspiracy against the Duke of Gloucester. Before a duel between them could take place, Richard II banished them both.

Established by Bill France, Sr., the position of National Honorary Commissioner of Racing was intended to be a powerless, honorary title in recognition of lifetime contributions to the sport of stock car racing. The title was originally awarded by France to Erwin Baker, known as "Cannonball"; following his tenure in the position, he was replaced by General Motors design czar - and personal friend of "Big Bill" France - Harley Earl, with Earl being followed by Dixiecrat Mendel Rivers. The position has, over the years, evolved into the final court of appeal for those protesting penalties and sanctions administered by NASCAR to its competitors. Following appeal to the National Stock Car Racing Commission, a 32-member body, an appellant can appeal directly to the Commissioner instead of accepting the Commission's verdict.

In 2007, former congressman Bob Barr said, "There is an overwhelming sense of injustice that pervades all of what has happened to Petitioner Appellant Edward Kramer." Protests to "Free Ed" gained the support of science fiction writers Harlan Ellison, Anne McCaffrey, Robert J Sawyer and J. Neil Schulman. Conversely, Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said in September 2010 that Kramer had "done nothing but delay and blame everyone else but himself", agreeing with an assessment that the Georgia Court of Appeals gave in September 2007: "The record strongly indicates that Kramer either sought or knowingly acquiesced in the great majority of the delay and did not want a speedy trial." Kramer and his lawyers disputed this, stating that he had serious health issues that prevented him from sitting through a long trial.

In 1997, his case was examined by Channel 4's Trial and Error programme. McNamee was later to be the first case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and his conviction was overturned on 17 December 1998, because of other, much more prominent, fingerprints on the same circuits, belonging to known IRA bomb-maker Dessie Ellis (who received a ten-year sentence in Ireland for possession of explosives after the bombings, but before MacNamee's trial), which were not disclosed at McNamee's original trial. Despite quashing McNamee's conviction, the appeal judges stated, "The Crown makes a strong case that the appellant [McNamee] was guilty of a conspiracy to cause explosions." Supporters of the campaign to clear his name included the comedian Jeremy Hardy.

During the High Court hearing the DPP decided not to proceed with charges that occurred before the appellant was fourteen years old, as Irish law at the time did not recognise that a male under that age was capable of sexual intercourse. The DPP proceeded with all other charges. The High Court judge noted that > The fact that a young person commits a crime and delay occurs does not of > itself per se confer immunity from prosecution. If the delay does not occur > through any fault of the State and is explicable and reasonable from the > point of view of the alleged victim and if the accused's ability to defend > himself is not so impaired that [there] would be a real and serious risk of > an unfair trial, then the trial should go ahead.

Murphy practiced law as an independent attorney in the Luhrs Tower in Phoenix, Arizona until he was nominated to the High Court of American Samoa under the Carter Administration and confirmed as an Associate Chief Justice in 1980. During his seven-year tenure, Associate Justice Murphy served with both Chief Justice Richard I. Miyamoto and later served with Chief Justice Robert Gardner. In 1986, the High Court of American Samoa was joined by the United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who presided over and ruled on many cases before the High Court. Justice Murphy left the High Court of American Samoa in 1987 when he moved to Honolulu, Hawaii where he took a position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender876 F.2d 734: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v.

Richard II, whose elevated view of royal power was strongly opposed by Arundel. Earl Richard was one of the Lords Appellant, the leaders of the baronial opposition to Richard II, and was executed in 1397. Burley's activities during these momentous events seems to have been entirely routine. In July 1397, immediately after Arundel's arrest, Burley was involved in some sort of deal with John Eyton that required a reciprocal agreement to pay each other a substantial £200 the next Michaelmas.Shropshire Archives Document Reference: 3365/67/47 at Discovering Shropshire's History. Later in the year he is recorded taking recognizances as usual, including an undertaking from William Glover of Ludlow for £60.Shropshire Archives Document Reference: 3365/67/47v at Discovering Shropshire's History. Business continued, with other smaller clients employing him, along with his usual colleagues.

Palestinian property owned but abandoned before, during, or after the 1967 war is administered by the Custodian for Abandoned Property- its trustee, on behalf of the IDF, until the owner returns. In practice repatriation of absentee owners is generally prohibited.(citation needed) Even if an appellant can prove he owns this land, and is resident in the West Bank, he cannot retake possession if in the meantime the Custodian has allowed it to be settled, as in the case of Beit Horon. In the Burqan case, where the plaintiff Mohammad Burqan's legal title to his former house in the Jewish Quarter was recognized, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected his request to be allowed to return to his home on the grounds that the area it was located in had "special historical significance" for Jews.

In R. v Konzani, the defence argued that by consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse with the defendant, the women were impliedly consenting to all the risks associated with sexual intercourse which included infection with HIV. In cross-examination two of the three women had explicitly acknowledged that, in general, unprotected sexual intercourse carried a risk of infection. However the Appeal Court judges ruled that before the complainants' consent could provide the appellant with a defence, it had to be an informed and willing consent to the specific risk, here the risk of contracting HIV, rather than the general one of contracting something. The same court held that a person accused of recklessly transmitting an STI could only raise the defense of consent, including an honest belief in consent, in cases where that consent was a "willing" or "conscious" consent.

Laffoy J. therefore determined that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the significance of the disclaimer where the appellant made it clear that details in the brochure were not warranted. O'Donnell J. concluded that the High Court had erred in "running together the analysis of a claim for a negligent act (incorrect measurement of the floor area of the property) and a claim for negligent misstatement (contained in the particulars of the property in the brochure) leading to the assumption that there existed a duty of care and, only then, looking to the disclaimer to consider whether it was sufficient to exclude that presumed duty of care." O'Donnell J. held that the approach of the High Court was more appropriate to the consideration of an exemption clause that seeks to limit a contractual liability that was already extant.

The prevalence of the offence and the increase thereof was no doubt taken into account by the magistrate, Viljoen JA believed, in the context of his aim to deter not only the appellant himself, but also others. For that reason, it would not serve any purpose, as the appellant's counsel had invited the Appellate Division to do, to compare other sentences imposed for the same offence. Of course, a comparison of sentences meted out in other cases might serve as a guide to ensure some proportionality in sentences, but it was only a rough guide, according to Viljoen JA, because there were so many factors to be taken into account—they could be usefully collected under the term "individualisation"—that no tariff or standard sentence could be maintained. One such factor was the personal circumstances of the offender.

In the case of R v Collins (1972) in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Stephenson and Lord Justice Edmund-Davies considered the meaning of "enters as a trespasser" in the definition of burglary. The Appellant, Collins, was a nineteen-year-old who had been convicted at the Essex Assizes of burglary with intent to commit rape and had been sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment. After an evening's drinking he had climbed a ladder wearing nothing but his socks and was about to enter a young woman's bedroom when she woke, saw him in the moonlight on her window- sill with an erect penis, thought he was her boyfriend coming to pay her a romantic call, and invited him in. After sexual intercourse, she realised that Collins was not her boyfriend and cried rape.

In the Fay Michael Peter case, the appellant Michael P. Fay had earlier pleaded guilty before a district judge to two charges of vandalism by spraying red paint on two cars. Twenty other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes, 16 of them charges of vandalism committed with paint. On appeal to the High Court, Fay's counsel argued that the Act, properly interpreted, showed that Parliament had not intended to punish all acts of vandalism using paint with caning, and that in each case the court had to determine if the paint used was easily removable or not before deciding whether to sentence the defendant to caning. Chief Justice Yong Pung How rejected this submission on the ground that there was no reason to deviate from the plain meaning of the words in the Act.

I have come to the conclusion in the present case > that the respondent is not entitled to recover the cruise fare on either of > the grounds just discussed. The consequence of the respondent's enjoyment of > the benefits provided under the contract during the first eight full days of > the cruise is that the failure of consideration was partial, not total. I do > not understand how, viewed from the perspective of failure of consideration, > the enjoyment of those benefits was "entirely negated by the catastrophe > which occurred upon departure from Picton", to repeat the words of the > primary judge. 18\. Nor is there any acceptable foundation for holding that > the advance payment of the cruise fare created in the appellant no more than > a right to retain the payment conditional upon its complete performance of > its entire obligations under the contract.

The work was immediately condemned by the conservative wing of the Anglican Church and William Thomson, Archbishop of York, began proceedings against him in 1869. He was summoned before the Chancery Court of York for heterodox teaching, where he defended his case for two years. He appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which gave its judgement on 11 February 1871: The Appellant is charged with having offended against the Laws Ecclesiastical by writing and publishing within the diocese of London certain sermons or essays, collected together in parts and volumes, the whole being designated by the title of "The Sling and the Stone," in which he is alleged to have maintained and promulgated doctrines contrary and repugnant to or inconsistent with the Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church of England. His appeal dismissed, Voysey lost his benefice.

Lubbe v Volkskas is an important case in the South African law of lease. In October 1987, the appellant brought an urgent application before a single judge in which he applied for an order # declaring that he had established a lien over the wheat crop on a certain part of the farm T; and # instructing the deputy sheriff to sell the said farm subject to his lien. It was common cause that the respondent's intention, as mortgagee, had been to sell the land subject to the lease and, if the property did not realise the amount of the judgment debt, then free of the lease. Judgment had been obtained by the respondent against the owner in January 1986 on a mortgage bond registered over the farm in 1983, and the property had been attached in March 1986.

When questioning Dr Cherry's intention and considering his preliminary actions when responding to the unconscious Chapman, the judges affirmed that Dr Cherry acted morally and correctly given the situation. It was questioned whether Dr Cherry's actions, and their consequent risk in assisting the appellant were reasonable. While it was decided that Dr Cherry should have taken more care when assisting Chapman, his actions were a result of human nature and a want to assist. Considering Dr Cherry's occupation as a doctor it was reasonable that he fulfilled a moral obligation to a person in need especially considering his ability to aid. This is significant as Dr Cherry's reaction was defined as legitimate; “a person who negligently creates a dangerous situation is liable to the rescuer for any injury sustained by him in aiding the person imperilled”.

He Kaw Teh appealed his conviction to the High Court of Australia, who found for the appellant. The court found, taking precedent from Sherras v De Rutzen (1895),Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 918 at 921. that the prosecution needed to establish an intent in matters of significant criminality unless the presumption was rebutted. Gibbs CJ found that “it is unlikely that the Parliament intended the consequences of committing an offence so serious should be visited on a person who had no intention to do anything wrong and no knowledge that he or she was doing so.”He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523 at 529-30 per Gibbs CJ. Dawson J found similarly that “mistaken belief in facts which are inconsistent with the required intent does not have to be based upon reasonable grounds.

If there are no substantial planning grounds for refusing an application, a planning inspector at appeal could well order the LPA to pay costs if its actions are shown to be both unreasonable and put the other side to unnecessary costs. The conduct of an appellant is similarly liable. The most effective methods of influencing the outcome of a planning application is to make written representations to the LOA and to one or more of the elected councillors who form the LPA, whose contact details are readily available on the LPA's website. Local councillors who are also members of the LPA's Planning Committee may be reluctant to meet with applicants or members of the public in person in order to prevent subsequent allegations of bias or pre-determination when the Planning Committee comes to make a decision.

Appellant, Alma Lovell, had been distributing literature as a Jehovah's Witness. She was arrested for this, pursuant to a Griffin, Georgia city ordinance which read, in part, that the > practice of distributing, either by hand or otherwise, circulars, handbooks, > advertising, or literature of any kind, whether said articles are being > delivered free, or whether same are being sold, within the limits of the > City of Griffin, without first obtaining written permission from the City > Manager of the City of Griffin, such practice shall be deemed a nuisance, > and punishable as an offense against the City of Griffin.Lovell, 303 U.S. at > 447. Alma Lovell did not contest the fact that she was distributing material in violation of this ordinance, but attested that the ordinance itself was unconstitutional, in that it violated her First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

One was that she was on the yacht at or about the time of the death of the deceased and was responsible for it, or had personal knowledge of facts material to a determination of who was responsible. The other was that she was responsible for, or a party to, a break-in on the yacht on 10 January 2009, which the appellant claimed had taken place. The Court noted that Gunson SC had, at trial, the opportunity to ask Vass questions that directly related to those two possibilities when he cross-examined her, but that the only question of that kind asked of her was: "Are you quite sure you've never been on board this boat?" The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the argument that a miscarriage of justice had occurred as a result of the failure to recall Vass.

Tuckiar v The King is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court which was decided on 8 November 1934, after a two-day hearing on 29–30 October 1934. The matter examined the behaviour of the judge and lawyers in the trial of Yolngu man Dhakiyarr (Tuckiar) Wirrpanda in the Northern Territory Supreme Court a year earlier for one of the Caledon Bay murders, and overturned the judgement which had found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. At the time the original case had stirred much controversy and caused a debate about the appropriateness of the Australian justice system for Indigenous Australians. It has become a case study in and raises many issues for legal ethics regarding instructions by Judges and the behaviour of defence counsel, as well as the treatment of Indigenous people before the Australian justice system.

A magistrate's court having granted absolution from the instance, on appeal the Cape Provincial Division held that Fotoplate had failed to discharge the onus of establishing a trade usage to absolve it from liability for breach of contract. Specifically, it had failed to establish # that a trade usage existed in respect of the consequences of the customer's approval of proofs; # that, if there was such usage, it applied to photolithographic positives and related, without qualification, to all errors, including those occurring in aspects not clearly conveyed to the customer; and # that, if the application to photolithographic positives were accepted subject to qualification, the error in the present case was in regard to a matter clearly conveyed to the customer. The court held, therefore, that judgment should have been granted for the appellant, in the amount claimed, with costs.

From these findings of fact the Court of Claims deduced, as a conclusion of law, that Brown was legally placed on the retired list, and had received the full amount of pay allowed him by law, and was not entitled to recover, and entered judgment dismissing the petition. The appeal of the petitioner brings that judgment under review. The appellant asserted that the law applied only to commissioned officers, and not to warrant officers, to which latter class Brown belonged. The question, however, was not a new one, and the findings showed that soon after the enactment of the act, the President and the Navy Department construed the section to include warrant as well as commissioned officers, and that they have since that time uniformly adhered to that construction, and that under its provisions, large numbers of warrant officers have been retired.

Assessment was made of appellant's property, consisting of storage tanks, substructures and associated pipes and facilities, on the assumption that the property constituted ‘real property’ within the meaning of s. 1 (g) of the Assessment Act. Appellant contended on the basis of Acadian Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Minister of Municipal Affairs (1973), 6 N.B.R. (2d) 755, that the tanks in question were excluded from the definition of ‘real property’ as being ‘machinery, equipment, apparatus and installations other than those for providing services to buildings or mentioned in subclause (ii)’. The trial judge found that the property constituted ‘structures which provide storage and shelter for movable property’ but feeling bound by Acadian Pulp and Paper held that they also constituted ‘machinery, equipment, apparatus and installations other than those providing services to buildings’ and therefore by the operation of s. 1 (g) (v) not ‘real property’ within the meaning of s.

The facts of this case, which involved two separate appellants, were similar to those of Zamir. Khera had entered the country by allegedly deceiving a medical officer into thinking he was not married. An answer to the contrary would have precluded him from being given leave to enter the UK. The other appellant, Khawaja, having unsuccessfully applied for a UK visa in Brussels, entered the UK by flying into Manchester, saying he would stay for one week and then return to Brussels to continue his studies. Facts later surfaced proving that, at the time of his entry, contrary to his declaration that he was single, he had been married to a woman who had entered the UK on the same flight but had been attended to by a different immigration officer and was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a returning resident.

In R v Linekar [1995] QB 250, a prostitute stated the fact that she would not have consented to sexual intercourse if she had known that her client was not intending to pay, but there was no fraud-induced consent as to the nature of the activity, nor was the identity of the client relevant. In R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200, the patient believed that she was receiving dental treatment which otherwise would have given rise to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, from a dentist who had in fact been struck off the register. The Court held that the identity of the defendant was not a feature which, in that case, precluded the giving of consent by the patient. In R v Navid Tabassum (May, 2000) the three complainant women agreed to the appellant showing them how to examine their own breasts.

Hing Hon Road Landlord and Tenant Association Ltd. v CRV [1978] HKLTLR 1 The Lands Tribunal held that all the four ingredients of rateable occupation were present and the appellant was in rateable occupation of the car parking spaces in Hing Hon Road, a private cul-de-sac. Rebus Sic Stantibus Principle Fir Mill Ltd. v Royton UDC and Jones (VO) [1960] 7 RRC 171 In connection with the assessment of cotton spinning mills and weaving sheds, the Lands Tribunal held that the premises must be valued as available for any industrial use, and not only for the use as spinning or weaving sheds. The Tribunal said: “A dwelling house must be assessed as a dwelling house, a shop as a shop, but not as any particular kind of shop; a factory as a factory, but not as any particular kind of factory.” Dawkins (VO) v Ash Brothers & Heaton, Ltd.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the case "was commenced by the appellant [John R. Stanton] as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the tariff act of October 3, 1913." On a direct appeal from the trial court, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, and rejected Stanton's request for a court order to prevent Baltic Mining Company from paying the income tax. Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Supreme Court rejected that argument.

Aulus Gellius defined five senses, saying "Ex quinque his sensibus quose animantibus natura tribit, visu, auditu, gustu, tactu, odoratu, quas Graeci αισθητεισ appellant" ("Nature has given five senses to living beings, sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell, called αισθητεισ by the Greeks"). But there is no evidence that this topos existed in the thinking of the Anglo-Saxons, since Old English does not possess the requisite taxonomy, and has difficulty with translations of Latin texts that do. The concept of there being five senses occurs in Christian sermons, devotional literature, and religious allegories of Middle English, although not all authors agreed exactly which senses the five were. Peter Damian in the 11th century correlated the five wounds that Jesus suffered during his crucifixion with the five senses, which was echoed by John Bromyard in Summa cantium, although the latter only explicitly mentions hearing, touch, taste, and sight.

Burzynski's use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. FDA and the Texas Attorney General,Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, Appellant v. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., Appellee Court judgement819 F.2d 1301 1987 judgment and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others.

A supporter of Richard II against Thomas of Woodstock and the Lords Appellant, he was rewarded with an Earldom as Earl of Gloucester in 1397, by virtue of being descended from Gilbert de Clare, 7th earl of an earlier creation. He spent the years 1397-99 in Ireland, attempting with little success to persuade the Gaelic chieftains to accept Richard II as their overlord. However, he supported Henry Bolingbroke on his return to England to become King Henry IV, only to be attainted (deprived of his Earldom because of a capital crime) for his role in the death of Thomas of Woodstock. He then took part in the Epiphany Rising, a rebellion led by a number of Barons aimed at restoring Richard to the throne by assassinating King Henry IV; this quickly failed when the conspirators were betrayed by Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York to Henry.

In the sixth century, bishop San Martín de Braga complained in his work De correctione rusticorum about the Galician peasants being attached to the pre- Christian cults: "Many demons, who were expelled from the heavens, settled in the sea, in the rivers, fountains and forests, and have come to be worshipped as gods by ignorant people. To them they do their sacrifices: in the sea they invoke Neptune, in the rivers the Lamias; in the fountains the Nymphs, and in the forests Diana."In Latin: "Et in mare quidem Neptunum appellant, in fluminibus Lamias, in fontibus Nymphas, in silvis Dianas, quae omnia maligni daemones et spiritus nequam sunt, qui homines infideles, qui signaculo crucis nesciunt se munire, nocent et vexant". The yew tree is still very important in Asturian folklore, where it stands as a link to the afterlife and is commonly found planted beside churches and cemeteries.

" Examples are > then given. Assault is defined, at p. 110, Sect. 1, as "... an attempt to > offer, with force and violence, to do a corporal hurt to another" and > battery (Sect. 2) as "... any injury whatsoever be it never so small, being > actually done to the person of a man in an angry, revengeful, rude, or > insolent manner..." ...the conclusion from each of them is clear, namely, > that the infliction of bodily harm without good reason is unlawful and that > the consent of the victim is irrelevant. In the unreported case of Reg. v. > Boyea (28 January 1992), in which the appellant was convicted of indecent > assault on a woman, Glidewell L.J. giving the judgment of the Court of > Appeal (Criminal Division) said: :"The central proposition in Donovan [1934] > is in our view consistent with the decision of the court in the Attorney > General's Reference (No.

It is initiated by a brief reduced to citing the provision, act, inactivity or action constituting a de facto route that is contested and to request that the appeal be filed. Once the procedure has been initiated, the court will require the Administration to forward the administrative file and to place the interested parties thereon by means of a notification that it will follow the rules established for the common administrative procedure. The administrative file will be placed in the hands of the appellant so that within 20 days, he files a writ of complaint, this time yes, with all the arguments and legal reasoning that he has deduced from the file. If there is no referral of the file, the Law raises multiple measures to compel the Administration, ranging from the impossibility of answering without accompanying file until the personal fine to the official or authority responsible for sending.

On 30 January 1388 Charleton was made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; a remarkable achievement considering he had no previous experience in the Court of Common Pleas. Charleton is not known to have been close to the Lords Appellant, who at that point controlled the government, but he was apparently close to William of Wykeham, which is the most likely explanation for his unexpected promotion. Charleton managed to stay relatively safe in the difficult early half of 1388; despite, due to his position, being involved in the Merciless Parliament which executed most of Richard II's court and senior advisers, but when Richard reasserted his authority in May 1389 Charleton was made a Knight banneret. Charleton attended at least seven of the eight Parliaments between February 1388 and January 1395, with the records for that in September 1388 not surviving, and on each occasion served as a Trier of Petitions.

Eleazar Smith, proprietor of a Los Angeles bookstore, was convicted of violating a city ordinance that made it unlawful "for any person to have in his possession any obscene or indecent writing, [or] book ... in any place of business where ... books ... are sold or kept for sale." Smith, 361 U.S. at 148. California municipal and superior courts contended that Smith was criminally liable because of the possession of the obscene material, even though he had no knowledge of the contents of the book; in the law’s definition there was no acknowledgement of the scienter (intent or knowledge of criminal activity), and so the ordinance imposed a strict criminal liability. The appellant appealed on the grounds that if the law were in fact constructed this way, it would come into conflict with the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

One of the most important and ongoing works of the King involves Kidu, a tradition based on the rule of a Dharma King whose sacred duty is to care for his people. The people can access Kidu in several ways: by applying to the Office of the Royal Chamberlain, which accepts applications during working hours; by sending applications through Dzongkhag Kidu Officers in every district, whose responsibility is to collect such applications as well as identify people who need help; and by appealing to the King directly. To give the people the opportunity for direct appeal, the King on his numerous road trips across the country stops for every potential appellant along the road. There are several Kidu schemes designed to help certain groups of people, such as students unable to afford even the free education available in the country, elderly citizens, and those requiring medical treatment.

This contemporaneous and uniform interpretation is entitled to weight in the construction of the law, and in a case of doubt ought to turn the scale. The appellant next contended that the retirement of Brown was illegal because, at the time of his retirement, no officer could be placed on the retired list for disability not originating in the line of duty. The theory behind this contention is this: the statute required that all officers retired for disability or incompetency not resulting from long and faithful service or wounds or injuries received in the line of duty or from sickness or exposure therein should be retired on furlough pay, and, as §§ 3, 5, and 19 of the Naval Appropriation Act of July 15, 1870, 16 Stat. 321, abolished the furlough pay list, the President was only authorized to retire Brown wholly from the service with one year's pay.

Comparisons between the facts of the case which has to be resolved and the facts of other cases in which a solution has already been found, or which might hypothetically arise, can obviously be useful and of value, and sometimes even decisive, but one should be careful not to attempt to distill fixed or generally applicable rules or principles from the process of comparison. The argument that the plaintiff's claim should "in principle" be rejected was misplaced. There is only one principle: In order to determine whether or not the plaintiff's damages were too remote from the defendant's act to hold the defendant liable, considerations of policy, reasonableness, fairness and justice should be applied to the particular facts of the case.18E-H. The court held that the respondent had been placed in a quandary which had been caused by the act of the appellant,17B.

Judges are treated as having concurred in another's judgment when they either formally attach themselves to the judgment of another or speak only to acknowledge their concurrence with one or more judges. Any judgment which reaches a conclusion which differs from the majority on one or more major points of the appeal has been treated as dissent. Because every judge in the court is entitled to hand down a judgment, it is not uncommon for groups of judges to reach the same conclusion (i.e. whether to allow or dismiss the appeal) in materially different ways, for example if a panel of 9 judges heard a case with 4 judges dismissing the appeal, 3 finding for the appellant on one point and 2 on another - the table should show 5 judges as the majority and the 4 judges who actually held the more mainstream view as dissenting.

Over the next seven months, Wickstrom took applications for and issued a liquor license and a cigarette license, attempted to file various documents indicating that he was a judge or a town clerk with local and state offices, and threatened to sue the Shawano County county clerk if she did not cooperate with his demand for official printed ballots. Since none of this was lawful under the relevant Wisconsin statutes, in 1983 Wickstrom was arrested for "assuming to act as [a] public officer". (During the trial, he announced to the court that he planned to set up similar townships in other states, and had the presiding judge served with an ersatz "subpoena" for a "Citizens Grand Jury", signing the document as "Judge". He was found guilty, and served over thirteen months in jail (he had received the maximum nine-month sentence on each count, to be served consecutively).798 F.2d 268 James P. WICKSTROM, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

The First and the Fourteenth Courts of Appeal present a peculiarity: both have their seat at the re-purposed historic 1910 Harris County Courthouse in Houston and exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same ten counties, the largest of which is Harris County. Parties who want to appeal a judgment or other order from a trial court in these counties are required to state in their notice of appeal that they wish to appeal to either the First or the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, and then have to wait for the result of random assignment to one or the other. They also have to disclose any prior appellate history of the same case in either one of the two courts. Both courts are served by the same clerk, currently Christopher Prine, whose office will issue an initial letter with instructions, along with the appellate docket number that will also reveal which court an appellant has drawn.

Phillips comments that "using accusations of tyranny to remove a legitimate and anointed king were too contentious and divisive to be of any practical use", which is why Edward had been accused of incompetence and inadequacy and much else, and not of tyranny. The Brut Chronicle, in fact, goes so far as to ascribe Edward's deposition, not to intentions of men and women, but to the fulfilment of a prophecy by Merlin. Edward's deposition also set a precedent and laid out arguments for subsequent depositions. The 1327 articles of accusation, for example, were drawn on sixty years later during the series of crises between King Richard II and the Lords Appellant. When Richard refused to attend parliament in 1386, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester and William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury visited him at Eltham Palace and reminded him how—per "the statute by which Edward [II] had been adjudged"—a King who did not attend parliament was liable to deposition by his lords.

Archbishop Cranmer was a descendant of the Cranmers of Aslockton near Bingliam. The political history of Nottinghamshire centres round the town and castle of Nottingham, which was seized by Robert of Gloucester on behalf of Maud in 1140; captured by John in 1191; surrendered to Henry III by the rebellious barons in 1264; formed an important station of Edward III in the Scottish wars; and in 1397 was the scene of a council where three of the lords appellant were appealed of treason. In the Wars of the Roses the county as a whole favoured the Yorkist cause, Nottingham being one of the most useful stations of Edward IV. In the Civil War of the 17th century most of the nobility and gentry favoured the Royalist cause, but Nottingham Castle was garrisoned for the parliament, and in 1651 was ordered to be demolished. From 1295, the county and town of Nottingham each returned two members to parliament.

The leading New Zealand case on the presumption of supply is R v Hansen, where the appellant was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply. Hansen argued that being required to persuade a jury that he did not possess cannabis for the purpose of sale or supply was inconsistent with his right under section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He argued that section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act required section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to be given a meaning consistent with the presumption of innocence. Hansen contended that consistency with the presumption of innocence would be achieved if section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was construed to impose an evidential burden on him which, if accepted by the jury, might create a reasonable doubt of his possession being for supply.

When the trial judge re- examined the witness, in answer to the trial judge, he said there was no difference between his original written statement to the police and his evidence at the trial. The statement was not produced. In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held: The judge erred in receiving evidence on the contents of the written statement he should have disregarded it in toto the evidence of M.S, who had committed perjury, as unreliable, and then asked himself whether there was enough other evidence for finding the appellant guilty; and as it was uncertain whether the judge would have convicted on the litigant's evidence alone the conviction would be quashed. The requirement that the false statement must have occurred under oath, in a judicial proceeding, which is a sine qua non for the offence of perjury under sections 156 of the Penal Code and 1 (1) of the English Perjury Act 1911, does not have a general application in all cases.

The court held that the intention of the parties in regard to the exemption clause was to substitute in the government's favour a right of recourse against the insurance company in the place of such rights of recourse as appellant had against Fibrespinners as bailee; the insurance policy in question covered the government for loss of the grainbags as a result of theft or Fibrespinners' negligence or that of its employees. The court held further that in law Fibrespinners was liable to compensate the government if the loss or damage was caused # by its own wilful wrongdoing or negligent conduct; or # possibly by the wilful wrongdoing (i.e. theft) or negligent conduct on the part of its servants, acting in the scope, and within the course, of their employment as such. The words of the exemption were, the court found, prima facie sufficiently comprehensive in their ordinary meaning to bring under the protective umbrella of the exemption the liability for the loss or damage in 1.

The Appellant, the Home Office, refused the claimants state support under Section 55 of the Act which allowed the Home Office to refuse support to asylum seekers who did not make their claim for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. The Court of Appeal, and subsequently the House of Lords, observed this legislation with reference to Section 55(5) that allows an exception that provides that support should still be provided to asylum- seekers if a failure to do so would violate their human rights. Hence, Adam, Limbuela, and Tesema responded by arguing that their circumstances satisfied the provision in Section 55(5)(a) which entitled them to receive state support from the Home Office due to violation of their rights under the ECHR (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998). The charity Shelter, and the National Council for Civil Liberties and Justice provided written submissions in support of the appellants as Interveners.

267 According to the Iorwerth Redaction, a prospective judge had to be at least twenty-five years of age and his legal knowledge has to be approved by the Court Justice: :... when his teacher sees that he is worthy, let him send him to the Court Justice, and it is for the Court Justice to test him, and if he finds him worthy, it is for him to send him to the Lord and it is for the Lord to grant him justiceship ... And it is for him to give twenty-four pence to the Court Justice as his fee.Jenkins Hywel Dda p. 141 It was possible to appeal against a judge's decision, and the appellant could demand that the judge show the authority of a book for his judgment. The consequences for a judge could be serious if his judgement was reversed, involving a financial penalty equivalent to the value of his tongue as laid down in the values of the parts of the body.

As part of the appeal, the receiver and Ulster Bank also argued that the case made on appeal by Moylist Construction Limited differed considerably from the case made in the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that it needed to balance the risks faced by a party if they are excluded from arguing a new ground and the potential unfairness to the other party if they are permitted to do so. However, the Supreme Court also noted that where an appeal relates to an application to dismiss as being bound to fail, an additional factor had to be brought into the balancing exercise, that is, the fact that the appellant concerned would, if the application to dismiss is ultimately successful, “be deprived of their opportunity to have a full hearing at all. That factor will not be decisive, but it may tip the balance in an appropriate case.”Moylist Construction Ltd v Doheny and Others [2016 IESC 9] [4.3], [2016] 2 IR 283 [27] (Clarke J).

Due to the sedative, HL was compliant and did not resist admission, so doctors chose not to admit him using powers of detention under the Mental Health Act. HL never attempted to leave the hospital, but his carers were prevented from visiting him in order to prevent him leaving with them. A report by the Health Service OmbudsmanHealth Service Ombudsman, (2001) 'Case No. E. 2280/98-99 ' heard evidence from a range of professionals that the standard of HL's care had been poor in the hospital, and he had become distressed and agitated. Mr and Mrs 'E' sought from the court a judicial review of the decision of the Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust "to detain the appellant on 22 July 1997 and the Trust's ongoing decision to continue the Appellant's retention" and a writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum to direct that HL be discharged and returned to their care.

Sir Thomas Mortimer (c. 1350–1399) was a medieval English soldier and statesman who served briefly in several important administrative and judicial state offices in Ireland and played a part in the opposition to the government of King Richard II. He was an illegitimate member of the Mortimer family, who were one of the leading noble houses of England and Ireland, and he helped to manage the Mortimer lands during the minority of the family heir, his nephew Roger, earl of March. Sir Thomas was also a close associate of the Lords Appellant, the powerful faction of nobles who opposed the administration of King Richard II. Sir Thomas took part in the Lords Appellants' rebellion in 1387 against the king, and fought at the Battle of Radcot Bridge, during which he killed Sir Thomas Molineux, one of the royal commanders. 10 years later, when the king took his revenge against the rebels, this act led to his conviction for treason.

One twentieth-century historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament." This includes the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere and those of Richard on the Appellants; although the court party was swept from power in 1386—when, as J. S. Roskell put it, "the exercise of royal authority was virtually handed over to a parliamentary commission"—Richard II had a "violent reaction" to the proceedings. Roskell also suggests that the affair was not so much an argument about who should rule, King or parliament, as the answer to that being anything other than the King would have been anachronistic. Rather, it was regarding whose attitude towards parliament would prevail: the King, who saw parliament as being a tool of royal authority, or parliament, who saw themselves as conciliar to the King.