Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Its presence at the time of the action could serve to defeat the Plaintiff's claim but this is clearly a question of fact and subject to the proofs at trial. Quite simply, the facts do not support the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and it should, therefore, be denied.
As indicated, the Plaintiff's injuries are severe. There is no doubt that the dog's actions caused her to suffer permanent and debilitating injuries to her ankle. Presently she suffers from a profound loss of mobility. She may also have suffered an injury to her back but this would be more in the form of an aggravation of a pre-existing injury as she had apparently suffered an earlier injury to this area. Unfortunately, she failed to advise us of this fact earlier but presenting this as an aggravation as opposed to a new injury should serve to obviate the Plaintiff's lack of disclosure. This possibility can be strengthened by emphasizing the fact that the Defendant expressed concerns about his dog's strange behavior prior to the date of the incident.
Conclusion
The discovery phase of this case has served to solidify this case. Facts have been disclosed that make the Defendant strictly liable and which exclude the application of the statutorily recognized exceptions. As there is no support for the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, this case should proceed toward trial where the Plaintiff should prevail where a substantial judgment should be warranted.
Judge Broderick concluded that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not give a defendant the right to require immunization of a witness, but that such a right is "probably" contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. However, he declined to accord the defendants the benefit of this "probable" Fifth Amendment right to defense witness immunity for two reasons. First, he ruled that
Psychosocial Dynamics of Twelve Angry Men Social-Psychology of Twelve Angry Men As a portrayal of a microcosm of society -- enhanced by its drill-down into the 1950s era in which the plot unfolds -- few films are as excruciatingly accurate as 12 Angry Men. The story lends itself to analysis of team dynamics and conflict resolution techniques, with the promise of extending beyond explicit attributes, such as an all-male cast, and
.. pronounce it invalid," which is not the case in the investment contract signed by Wolf. The contract was standard, and gave authority to the broker to invest and manage the original sum of money. Although it could be argued that, given Wolf's expressed desire that the funds be invested conservatively, that the actions of the defendant were not optimal, that does not make it patently offensive to the point
The statistics also show that plea bargain decisions are biased against black defendants. The United States for example entered into a plea bargain with forty-eight percent of white defendants, while doing so for only twenty-five percent of black defendants. Bass's statistics also show that there is a huge discrepancy between death penalty charges for whites and blacks: sixteen percent of whites are charged with firearms murder while thirty-two percent
Double Jeopardy and Legislative Limitations The legal concept of "Double Jeopardy" is a rather simple one to define and to understand, but application of the Double Jeopardy standard is anything but easy or simple. On a very basic level, Double Jeopardy is a limitation in court proceedings that the same person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, regardless of the verdict or outcome of the first trial. But, as
From the statements Cruz makes about this, there is no doubt that Cruz knows how to handle his self when these occasions come up. This is probably why Cruz can make the statement that he has never found his self in a compromising situation. Cruz does not take cases where he believes the client is going to cause harm to another individual(s). Cruz has made the statement, too, that most