Citation: Bob Timberlake Collection, Inc. v. Edwards, 176 N.C. App. 33, 626 S.E.2d 315 (2006). Procedural History: Bob Timberlake Collection Incorporated filed a complaint against Mr. Marshall Edwards alleging breach of stock purchase agreement, default of promissory note, and misrepresentation. Mr. Edward’s filed a counterclaim that consisted of claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, securities fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of the stock purchase agreement and breach of a January 2002 agreement. Bob Timberlake Collection then asked for Mr. Edwards counterclaims to be dismissed, which the Trial Courts agreed upon based on Edwards’s prejudice for failure "to state proper claims for which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the …show more content…
Marshall Edwards had agreed upon a stock purchase regarding Riverwood, INC. Mr. Edwards bought 90% of the stock in Riverwood. Mr. Edwards agreed to pay BTI $800,000.00. The $800,000.00 would be made in three payments to BTI. His first payment was paid in April of 2001 for $250,000.00. He then agreed to the other payments of $250,000.00 and $300,000.00 in a promissory note, which were supposes to be secured. After entering into the stock purchase agreement Mr. Edwards claimed that prior to his purchase, BTI made inaccurate statements to him regarding Riverwood’s "established" sales force, general ledger trial balance, and general ledger reflecting ownership of certain equipment that was owned by third parties. Edward’s brought up the issue with the chief operation officer of BTI, Mr. Daniel Timberlake. When Mr. Timberlake got back with him he did not respond to the letter’s that Timberlake sent to Edward’s, and he did not pay the second payment of $250,000.00 or the last payment of $300,000.00. In 2 July 2003, BTI filed a complaint alleging breach of the stock purchase agreement, default of promissory note, and
Mr. Limon’s mother retained Plaintiff to pursue a tort claim on behalf of Mr. Limon and her (collectively, the “Clients”) against the allegedly negligent driver. The negligent driver had an automobile liability policy issued through defendant Geico. Plaintiff alleges that its attorney’s fee contract with the Clients granted it a one-third contingency fee in “all monies collected” as a result of the lawsuit against the negligent driver. (Petition, ¶¶ 5.2, 5.3) 4.
The second trial I attended was a personal injury civil jury trial with Judge Carrier. This was a rather interesting case of Jennifer Wolfe VS D & W LLC. Within this case, Jennifer Wolfe attended a bachelorette party eight years ago with her now sister-in-law, who was the maid of honor. The story started out with everyone meeting at a house and the maid of honor was mad that the designated person to bring alcohol, forgot to bring the alcohol. The alcohol drank at this house was whatever was there, which was a few beers and a box of wine.
In Greene’s Case, they had Ms. Lawson sign a confidentiality agreement that was disregarded by the defendant. Although the accused became distraught with the loss of her position, it was wrong to relay the information regarding ever-gold to a competitor. c) Facts to be
The complaint states that on October 14, 2016, plaintiff Kirk Thompson, a UPS driver, delivered a box to defendant Eleanor Lewis at her single-family home in White Plains, New York. When Mr. Thompson placed the box on the front stoop and rang the doorbell, he heard Ms. Lewis’s dog barking and scratching the other side of the door. Mr. Thompson then walked back to his van when he heard a female voice behind him instructing him not to move. As Mr. Thompson turned around, Ms. Lewis’s dog, Simon, bit him on the arm, requiring surgery for Mr. Thompson and him missing six months of work due to his inability to drive.
The issue presented in this case is whether the San Francisco Giants was negligent when Janice Lewis was pushed and fell on the top of the metal bars during the parade. The San Francisco Giants Will be found negligence of San Francisco Giants breached the parade duty to its patrons and, as a result of that breach, Janice Lewis was injured. McGarry v. Sax, 70 Cal. Rptr.
State v. Terrell Facts: John Watson was a close friends of the defendant’s mother and maintained a friendly report with Terrell. Terrell was on parole at the time of the alleged incident for unrelated charges at the time. The confrontation stemmed from stole checks that Terrell had taken from Watson and begin sharing and using to buy goods. On June 20, 1992, Watson discovered that the checks had been stole and were being used by Terrell and spoke with Terrell’s mother and then summoned the sheriff’s deputy. Watson asked for the charges to not yet be filed until he notified them.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell Oral Argument Summary The oral argument in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell consists of Isaacman’s arguments along with the justices’ questioning of both attorneys. Isaacman argued that parody, specifically the Campari Ad which contained a fake interview about Jerry Falwell’s incestuous relationship with his mother, should be protected by the First Amendment. On the other side of the argument, Grutman who represented Jerry Falwell argued that the speech should be held liable because it caused emotional distress.
Britney Spears and Joyce Brown are two women who suffered from mental illness, and both got their rights stripped away from them due to their mental illness. This raises the concern on rights for the mentally ill, and when that line can/ should be crossed. In the case concerning Britney Spears it is important to note that she did have a close relationship with her mother, but never with her father. Spears father was an alcoholic.
Legal History/Procedure: The tribunal for the Ellison v. Burger King Corp. case was presiding judge, Blackburn of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of defendants Burger King, SRH (Southern Restaurant Hospitality), Carl Payton (SRH president), and the manager. Ellison appealed the judgement of the trial court to the Court of Appeals contending that material issues of fact impeded summary judgment. Operative Facts: Sharon Ellison, went to a Burger king to put in her order and wanted to know why no one was serving her. She claims the manager on duty put her hands around her neck and eventually started shaking her head.
Introduction In response to question one of unit 4, I will discuss the facts, issues, as well as court holdings referencing the Roper v. Simmons case of 2005. Discussion The Roper v. Simmons case is noted for being one of the most significant cases in the history of the juvenile court system as it abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of eighteen in the United States (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This case was argued on October 13, 2004, and a decision was reached by the United States Supreme Court on March 1, 2005. The case referenced the sentencing of Christopher Simmons to death for a crime he committed at the age of seventeen (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).
As commander in chief the president has certain obligations and power that can be controversial during times of war and foreign affairs. The fundamental of democracy was founded in the year of 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed into effect by the founding fathers declaring America independent from England. America engaged in the American Revolution in an attempt to attain independence from the mother country and escape from their abusive government system where the people had no voice and all decisions were made by the king without the consent of their people. They debated over what the fundamentals of the government will be and the distribution of power. The founding fathers debated on the structure of a new government, but
FACTS In December of 1990, Gerry DiNardo was hired as the head football coach by and for Vanderbilt University under a five-year contract. Under this contract, “liquidated damage provisions” were outlined for both parties, with section 8 of the employment contract specifically detailing the liquidated damages he should owe to the plaintiff/appellee should he terminate his five-year contract with Vanderbilt and be “employed or performing services for a person or institution other than the University” within the five-year term of the aforementioned contract. In August of 1994, the Athletic Director for the University, Paul Hoolahan, offered the defendant/appellant a two-year extension of the contract. An addendum was drawn up by Vanderbilt’s Deputy General Counsel that would extend
An Opening Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102. This case is to be decided on four issues: 1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? 2) Sale.
February 27, 2017 Tax File Memorandum FROM: Derrek Mason SUBJECT: Shelly Zumaya and Kiwi Corporation Tax Liability FACTS: Shelly Zumaya is the president and sole shareholder of Kiwi Corporation (stock basis of $400,000). Kiwi Corporation, incorporated in 2003, is in the business of purchasing and reselling used farming equipment. In December 2012, Kiwi transferred its entire inventory (basis of $1.2 million) to Shelly Zumaya in a transaction that was recorded as a sale.
Business 140 Take Home Examination Randy and Laura, a newly engaged couple, had taken a trip to the local Warehouse in preparation for a trip they have been both planning. Unfortunately while Laura was searching for the perfect ski jacket, a display of cooking stoves fell from the above sky shelves. Laura is not the first to have been injured, or killed by department store sky shelves. However, not only was she a victim of corporate greed, and there lack of safety, but also a victim of theft. Laura was pictured walking into the Warehouse with a diamond necklace, and a ruby and diamond ring which was never brought back to her possession after the incident.