Mazzagati v. Everingham‚ 512 Pa. 266 (1986). Facts: An automobile driven by Defendant fatally struck Plaintiff’s daughter. At the time of the accident‚ Plaintiff received a telephone call immediately after the collision at work informing her that her daughter had been involved in an automobile accident. Plaintiff arrived at the scene of the accident a few minutes later. Procedural Posture: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the nature of a Demurrer granted by the Montgomery County
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff
RIGHT OF WAY OF NECESSITY INTRODUCTION A Right of way of Necessity is granted in favour of a property over an adjoining one constituting the only means of ingress to and egress from the former property to some place with which it must of necessity have a communicating link. In the Sri Lankan context this area of the law is governed under the common law principles mean that under the Roman Dutch law concepts. The Roman Dutch law proceeded on a general maxim that there could be no block land and
Premium Motorway Freeway Highway
of Indiana. This is court case number 82A04-8876-CB285‚ White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton‚ xxxxx Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch‚ Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White. The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are seeking a summary judgment which is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously resolve a case without a trail
Premium Plaintiff Judgment Defendant
The aim of tort law is to compensate the claimant and to deter defendants’ discuss whether the rules of causation and remoteness of damage fulfil this aim. The rules of causation state that the claimant has to prove that the defendants breach of duty was the factual cause of material damage‚ when considering the facts of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (CKHMC) where the claimants husband became ill after drinking tea which had arsenic‚ when taken to hospital‚ the doctor
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Australian Woollen Mills (1954) 92 CLR 424 Material Facts In June 1946 the Commonwealth Government announced that it would pay a subsidy to manufacturers of wool who purchased and used it for local manufacture after 30 June 1946. The Plaintiff purchased and used wool for local manufacture between 1946-48 and received some payments. The Government subsequently stopped its subsidy scheme and the Plaintiff sued the Government for subsidies it claimed it was due. Rules There was no contract. The
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
of Manila‚ alleging that the partnership‚ which was also made a party-defendant‚ had been paying dividends to the partners except to her; and that notwithstanding her demands the defendants had refused and continued to refuse and let her examine the partnership books or to give her information regarding the partnership affairs to pay her any share in the dividends declared by the partnership. She therefore prayed that the defendants be ordered to render accounting to her of the partnership business
Premium Contract Appellate court Trial court
the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-12342 August 3‚ 1918 A.A. ADDISON‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ Vs. MARCIANA FELIX and BALBINO TIOCO‚ defendants-appellees. FACTS: By a public instrument dated June 11‚ 1914 plaintiff Addison sold to the defendant Marciana Felix and husband Balbino Tioco‚ 4 parcels of land. Defendants paid‚ at the time of the execution of the deed‚ the sum of P3‚000.00 on account of the purchase price‚ and bound herself to pay the remainder in installments
Premium Legal terms Property law Contract
case make for a great story. The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore‚ the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball‚ the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates
Premium Implied warranty Baseball Plaintiff
revolves around the validity or otherwise of the notice of demand sent by the solicitors of the plaintiff bank on 9 January 1988 and the subsequent statutory notice in Form 16D sent by the same party on 19 January 1988. The attacks mounted by the defendant company against the validity of the said notice of demand and the statutory notice in Form 16D are basically that (i) the sum mentioned in both the notices exceeds the actual sum owed and payable by the borrower and (ii) the plaintiff bank has not
Premium Plaintiff Civil procedure Defendant
CASE-2 Defendant: - KINGFISHER AIRLINE. Plaintiff: - LATA SIKRI. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I‚ UT Chandigarh (for short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case No. 603 of 2010 of Lata Sikri vs. Kingfisher Airlines for deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Airlines in not issuing the boarding pass to her on a Delhi-Hyderabad flight for which the complainant held confirmed / OK ticket partly allowed the complaint of the complainant with the following directions: From
Premium Indira Gandhi International Airport Plaintiff Kingfisher Airlines