Legal Briefs Title and Citation: Suggs v.

Legal Briefs

Title and Citation: Suggs v. Norris. No. 364 S.E. 2nd 159. Court of Appeals North Carolina. 2 February 1988

Type of Action: Civil and Contractual

Facts of the Case: Darlene Suggs cohabited with Norris, but remained unmarried. During their time together she worked with him as a partner in his produce business and, according to witnesses, was quite instrumental in the success of said business. Suggs also took care of Norris during his last years when he suffered he effects of chronic alcoholism. When Norris died, his heirs gave Suggs nothing.

Contentions of the Parties: Suggs sued the Norris estate for breach of implied contract. Norris' estate argues that any contract is void because cohabiting is against public policy.

Issues: Does public policy prohibit the recovery by a plaintiff partner in a cohabiting relationship but unmarried from the other partner's estate for services or benefits given to the other partner under he conditions that the business proceeds were used to benefit he estate of the deceased partner?

Decision: The original Court found for Suggs and the Trial judge denied the defendant's motion for directed verdict. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

Reasoning: The issue was not one implying sexual relations or cohabitation, but whether there was an implied contract between Norris and Suggs. Since there was ample evidence of this implication, as well as Suggs' expertise and ability to prove her value n the business, the contract between them was assured. The Court upheld that there were enough facts in the original trial or the Jury to make an informed decision and there were enough indications for an implied contract between Suggs and Norris.

Rule of Law: Implied contracts are enforceable in numerous circumstances, regardless of the morality or civil behavior of the individuals.

Title and Citation: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. No. 399 F. 3rd 924. Supreme Court of the United States.

Type of Action: Civil, Constitutional Rights

Facts of the Case: Defendant Gonzales was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and hired Joseph Low to represent him in Federal Court. The Judge refused to allow Low to represent the defendant because of a previous issue in a case, and Gonzales was convicted. He appealed, arguing his rights had been violated and without the counsel of his choice he was incorrectly convicted.

Contentions of the Parties: Defendant believed that had he had his choice of attorney, his verdict would have been different.

Issues: If the Court makes an incorrect decision by denying a defendant his 6th Amendment right to an attorney f his own choosing, then is the defendant automatically entitled to have his conviction overturned?