tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876Thu, 19 Sep 2024 17:43:52 +0000lawcontractscourtcase lawpromissory estoppelstatute of fraudstrialSupreme Courtcriminalevidencejurisdictionlegalpublic policyCaliforniaCongressIowaLabor CodeLabor Management Relations ActNational ActNew JerseyThomas and William Lewisactivityaffidavitapplicationappurtenantattorneycasecase briefscasescharitycivil procedurecollective bargainingcommercecommon lawcompanyconspiracyconstructionconversioncorruptcrimedefaultdefendant refused to accedeeasementeminent domainemploymentequitable estoppelevilexcess liabilityfarmfinancefinancialgovernmentgunshouseinjunctioninjunctive reliefinnocentinsurance companyintelligenceintentinterstate commercelaw schoollawfullaymenlegislationloansmanmerchant of Pine Bluffmoneymortgagemunicipalopinionopinion by by Acting Presiding Justice Turney Foxoptionordinanceowned and occupied by the plaintiffsparol evidence. trialpast or present situationplaintiffprohibits closed shop agreementspromisepublic policy of the statepunishmentquestion presentedreal estaterealtyright of wayrocksevering the statutory provisionsstocktobaccotranscriptunlawfulwisdomhttp://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)Blogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-4760732023184537111Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:11:00 +00002008-11-17T22:11:00.106-08:00conspiracycorruptcrimecriminalevilinnocentintentlawunlawfulThe association of persons with an honest intent is not conspiracy, and one of the tests on a conspiracy trial is, did the accused act in ignorance without criminal intent? In other words, did they honestly entertain a belief that they were not committing an unlawful act? In People v. McLaughlin the charge was a conspiracy to violate the Penal Code. The court stated:Appellants say they arehttp://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/court-holds-association-of-persons-with.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-7554129303503003546Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:57:00 +00002008-11-17T18:57:00.337-08:00courtevidenceinjunctive reliefjurisdictionlawNational ActSupreme CourttrialWe are satisfied that the trial court was in error in holding that the state court had concurrent jurisdiction with the National Board in entertaining the controversy. If that question was at all of uncertain solution at the time the present action was commenced it was made certain by the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Garmon, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and the Guss cases. It was http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/trial-court-erred-in-determination.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-6565537903772848494Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:23:00 +00002008-11-17T15:23:00.574-08:00affidavitcasecivil procedurecourtdefaultlawtranscriptLogsdon v. Keogh, 156 Cal.App.2d 726, 320 P.2d 154 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1958). This appeal is taken by plaintiff in propria persona on a clerk's transcript only; no reporter's transcript, settled statement or agreed statement having been filed. A jury trial was had resulting in a verdict followed by judgment for defendants. This appeal is limited to certain motions and orders preceding and http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/logsdon-v-keogh.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-570175529993010979Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:37:00 +00002008-11-17T12:43:32.362-08:00applicationcourtinjunctionjurisdictionlawlegalopinionplaintiffPrior to the commencement of this action the plaintiff was regularly dispatched to work by the officials of Local 162. In January 1953 he filed with that local his written application of journeymen membership accompanied by one-half of the initiation fee, as required by its constitution. He was notified in writing to take the entrance examination conducted by the local. He passed it, filed a http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/plaintiff-filed-application-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-6666900891561374180Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:05:00 +00002008-11-14T07:10:35.378-08:00attorneyCaliforniacompanycontractsexcess liabilityfinancialinsurance companylawlegalopinion by by Acting Presiding Justice Turney FoxThere are two basic problems involved. One relates to the nature and extent of the duty owed by an insurance company to its insured when excess liability may be involved, and whether that duty was here violated. The second question revolves around the legal effect of the covenant not to execute, and whether the securing of that covenant fulfilled the company's obligation to its insured. It http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/duty-owed-by-insurance-company-for.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-293527902368169271Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:47:00 +00002008-11-14T06:56:49.525-08:00activitycontractscriminalintelligencelawlawfullaymenmanpublic policypunishmentsevering the statutory provisionswisdomA further consideration is that this ordinance is so vague and indefinite that the persons to be affected thereby could not reasonably be expected to know whether or not it was intended to apply in a given situation. A man of common intelligence would necessarily have to guess at its meaning as applicable to any contract act or activity. While the express intention of the ordinance is to prohibithttp://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/persons-affected-by-law-do-not-know.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-6928503450527866866Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:36:00 +00002008-11-14T06:47:51.639-08:00collective bargainingcommon laweminent domainemploymentlawlegislationpublic policypublic policy of the statequestion presentedSupreme CourtThe main question here presented is as to whether this ordinance is in conflict with the existing law and the declared public policy of the state, and as to whether this field of legislation has been sufficiently covered by the state to make such local legislation invalid. The appellants argue from certain cases involving such matters as licenses, permits, filing of claims, eminent domain and http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/court-addressed-scope-of-general-laws.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-9103825626532214120Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:22:00 +00002008-11-14T06:36:02.476-08:00case lawcommerceCongressinterstate commerceLabor CodeLabor Management Relations Actlawmunicipalordinanceprohibits closed shop agreementsThe appellants contend that this ordinance would be valid if it were a state rather than a municipal law. It is then contended that municipal laws are valid unless they conflict with general laws; that this ordinance does not conflict with the general laws because the state has not occupied this field; that it does not directly conflict with nor duplicate any state statute since it prohibits onlyhttp://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/invalid-municipal-law-would-be-valid-if.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-5035157357228247918Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:06:00 +00002008-11-12T14:24:23.814-08:00case lawcontractsevidenceparol evidence. trialpromisepromissory estoppelstatute of fraudsThe statute of frauds is a legal doctrine that requires that certain types of contracts be reduced to a writing in order to be enforceable. While the statute of frauds varies from one jurisdiction to another, in general it requires that the following types of contracts must be in writing and signed by the party against whom the contract is asserted in order to be enforceable: contracts which http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/statute-of-frauds.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-2704056223825436086Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:19:00 +00002008-11-03T15:25:11.974-08:00case lawcontractsconversiongunslawmerchant of Pine Bluffmortgagestatute of fraudsstocktobaccotrialDavis v. Meyer, 1 S.W. 95 (Ark., 1886) Action for conversion of goods claimed by appellants under a chattel mortgage, and claimed by appellees under a prior purchase from the mortgagor. Judgment for plaintiffs, and appeal therefrom by defendants. Frank Tomlinson, a merchant of Pine Bluff, was indebted to both parties to this action. On the twentieth of October, 1883, he sold to Gabe http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/davis-v-meyer.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-8341657624116015818Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:05:00 +00002008-11-03T15:11:35.610-08:00appurtenantcase lawcontractseasementfarmgovernmentlawright of waystatute of fraudsThomas and William LewisJohnson v. Lewis, 14 S.W. 466 (Ark. 1885). The appellant Johnson filed his complaint against appellees, Thomas and William Lewis, alleging that he was in possession, and had been for some time, of a small tract of land which is surrounded by the farm of the defendants in such manner as that there is no mode of egress from it to any public highway, or ingress from any public highway, except http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/johnson-v-lewis.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-6799256220866196107Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:31:00 +00002008-11-01T21:42:58.361-07:00contractscourtdefendant refused to accedelawNew Jerseyoptionreal estaterealtytrialFriedman v. Tappan Development Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 126 A.2d 646 (N.J. 1956). The opinion of the court was delivered by HEHER, J. We certified for appeal the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, reversing a judgment of the Chancery Division awarding to plaintiffs specific performance of what was (and is) asserted to be a contract for the sale by the defendant http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/friedman-v-tappan-development-corp.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-8031127208382689422Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:22:00 +00002008-11-01T21:31:40.727-07:00case briefscasescharitycontractscourtlawlaw schoolpromissory estoppelPromissory estoppel is an important doctrine in contract law in which a non contractual promise lacking consideration rendered enforceable to avoid an injustice. Promissory estoppel arises when injustice can be avoided only by means of the enforcement of a promise that would otherwise be unenforceable for lack of consideration. It is usually applied in cases in which a party has relied on anotherhttp://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/11/promissory-estoppel.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-8970513568237021755Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:32:00 +00002008-10-31T21:07:03.562-07:00contractsequitable estoppelhouseIowalawowned and occupied by the plaintiffspromissory estoppelrockstatute of fraudstrialMiller v. Lawlor, 245 Iowa 1144, 66 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1954). Plaintiffs are husband and wife. We shall, for convenience, refer to J. R. Miller as 'plaintiff' since Mrs. Miller does not seem to have taken active part in the transaction or trial. They bought their present home in Cherokee, Iowa, from one Vander Wal in the spring of 1952. It is on a sightly eminence with what is described as a 'http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/10/miller-v-lawlor.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079174142713145876.post-6266207850900746596Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:28:00 +00002008-10-31T19:50:53.030-07:00constructioncontractsfinancelawloansmoneypast or present situationpromissory estoppelPeoples Nat. Bank of Little Rock v. Linebarger Const. Co., 240 S.W.2d 12, 219 Ark. 11 (Ark. 1951). McFADDIN, Justice. The trial court refused to allow appellant any recovery for money which it had advanced to Floyd Cart in reliance on appellees' representations to appellant. The appellee, Linebarger Construction Company (hereinafter called 'Linebarger'), was a partnership http://contract-law-cases.blogspot.com/2008/10/peoples-nat-bank-of-little-rock-v.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Contract Law)