Lawnix - Free Case Briefs

Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. – Case Brief

Lawnix — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:09:13 +0000

A party may not recover for injuries sustained as a result of fright and alarm caused by the defendant’s negligence if there was no immediate personal injury. No recovery can be had for mere fright and a defendant cannot therefore be liable for its consequences including injuries resulting from it. Sullivan v. O’Connor [...]

Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. – Case Brief

Lawnix — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:58:28 +0000

Accidents that are due to a lack of care can be prevented by taking care. When a lack of care can be proven such accidents are adequately deterred by the threat of tort law liability for negligence. If a tank car is carefully maintained the danger of a spill of acrylonitrile is negligible. There is no compelling reason to move to a regime of strict liability, especially one that might embrace all other hazardous materials shipped by rail. Lavender v. Kurn [...]

Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. – Case Brief

Lawnix — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:06:25 +0000

In typical consumer transactions the purchaser is the offeror and the seller is the offeree. Klocek offered to purchase the computer and Gateway accepted. Under UCC § 2-207, the Standard Terms constitute either an expression of acceptance or written confirmation. The Terms would constitute a counter-offer only if Gateway expressly made its acceptance conditional on Klocek’s assent to the additional or different terms. Harvey v. Facey [...]

Bridges v Hawkesworth – Case Brief

Lawnix — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:33:37 +0000

The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all but the true owner. The fact that the property was discovered on premises owned by Hawkesworth does not constitute an exception to the general rule that a finder has the superior claim of right to possession of lost property. Armory v. Delamirie [...]

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. – Case Brief

Lawnix — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:00:52 +0000

Extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a written instrument if that evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language is reasonably susceptible. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, detract from or vary the terms of a written contract; however the terms must first be determined in order to rule on whether extrinsic evidence is offered for a prohibited purpose. Empro Mfg. Co. v. Ball-Co Mfg., Inc. [...]

Freddo v. State – Case Brief

Lawnix — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:18:17 +0000

For voluntary manslaughter the passion from the provocation must be such that the law deems it reasonable and adequate in the mind of an average person to cause violence, leading the heat of passion to take control rather than judgment. The court stated that no mere epithet or language is sufficient provocation for taking life, no matter how violent or offensive. Godfrey v. Georgia [...]

Godfrey v. Georgia – Case Brief

Lawnix — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:21:51 +0000

A death sentence imposed on the grounds that a murder was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman” is arbitrary and capricious and therefore unconstitutional for violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Under these facts, Godfrey’s crimes cannot be said to have reflected a consciousness materially more depraved than that of any other person guilty of murder. Lassiter v. Department Of Social Services [...]

Rex v Manley – Case Brief

Lawnix — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:40:51 +0000

An act that prejudices the community is indictable under the common law of crimes. Committing an act tending to the public mischief is a misdemeanor. The court indicated that guilt of this crime would be predicated on the fact that Manley caused two officers to devote their time to a nonexistent crime and that other members of the public who answered the description of the nonexistent suspect were put at peril of suspicion and arrest. Tickle v. Barton [...]

Jones v. Commonwealth – Case Brief

Lawnix — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:53:40 +0000

The term “willful” contemplates an intentional, purposeful act or omission in the care of a child by one responsible for such child’s care. The code does not require that a child actually suffer serious injury as a result of a defendant’s acts or omissions. The illegal drugs were within arm’s reach of an unattended young child and the dangers inherent in such a situation could be inferred by the fact finder as a matter of common knowledge. People v. Thomas

United States v. Mancuso – Case Brief

Lawnix — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:54:03 +0000

Ignorance of the law is an excuse when the law is a little known statutory command that can only be discovered by reading the statute. The primary purpose of the law is to conform conduct to the norms expressed in that law. When there is no knowledge of the law’s provisions and no reasonable probability that knowledge might be obtained, no useful end is served by prosecuting the violators. United States v. Freed [...]