oatmeal
I need this answer asap
if the bottle was white then the plaintiffs should have amounted to contributory negligence
Jim V. Lopez has written: 'Judgment proof' -- subject(s): Debtor and creditor, Estate planning, Executions (Law), Exemption (Law)
C V Lopez - Manila painter 1950's -well known! I have one that I found in the USA signed < = V Lopez Manila > Email me a picture if you have one! jazzyartist@hotmail.com
Lopez "won". Lopez was a high student who brought a gun into school. He was charged with violating Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. He was tried and convicted. He appealed the decision, saying Congress didn't have a right to legislate guns in the way the did (through the interstate commerce clause). The appeals court agreed. The government appealed the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court ruling in a 5-4 decision (essentially overturning Lopez' conviction) saying that while Congress has broad powers under the commerce clause, that power was not limitless.
"Matt Goss Live in Vegas"! Check it out!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVhnEQgm9ak He's playing every Friday & Saturday nights at the moment & his new album GOSSY was just released worldwide on itunes today!
The facts are straightforward and undisputed. On December 30, 2002, plaintiffs purchased a new motor home manufactured by defendant, which is located in Indiana. From the time that plaintiffs took possession of the motor home, water continuously leaked into it. Plaintiffs took the motor home to the dealer for repair of the leaks on several occasions, but the dealer failed to successfully fix the leaks. Plaintiffs also had several phone conversations with representatives of defendant, including the president of defendant, but again the leaks were not corrected. On December 23, 2003, plaintiffs' attorney mailed a letter to defendant notifying it of the leaks and the failed attempts to correct the leaks. In the letter, plaintiffs asked defendant to replace the vehicle in accordance with ORS 646.335. (1) The letter did not reach defendant until December 29, 2003, and plaintiffs filed their complaint the next day. (2) The trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, rejecting defendant's contention that it did not have an opportunity to correct the defect before plaintiffs filed the action.
Oliver Brown was the named plaintiff, he was one of the parents involved in the case, but he was only one of 13 plaintiffs.
William Marbury and his fellow plaintiffs wanted the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take action) to Secretary of State James Madison, commanding him to deliver the missing commissions so the plaintiffs could take office as justices of the peace.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp 866 (D. DC 1972)Mills established a much-cited and persuasive, but non-binding, precedent of requiring school districts to provide appropriate educational placement for exceptional-needs children. The opinion was later strengthened by US Supreme Court decisions like Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1975) and Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 (1988), among others, which did create binding precedents.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-lopez