Answered: Describe the remedy granted by the… | bartleby

Related questions

Question

Describe the remedy granted by the Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs on kelo v city of new london

Expert Solution

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Blurred answer

Similar questions

Locate Alberta's Court of Justice Civil Procedure Regulation. Pursuant to Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, a civil claim must clearly state? Answer:
Harman’s lawyer was successful in representing Harman in their Alberta Court of King’s Bench trial, securing a judgment of $675,000. The Justice also awarded Harman costs based on Schedule “C” of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 . Based on the foregoing, how much will Harman receive in Schedule “C” costs for the work their lawyer did preparing commencement documents, affidavits, pleadings and related documents and amendments? (Put answer in as a number)
a WI Thi aw poin loqua yd olM : Jane was tired of living in the jungle with Tarzan and entered into a sales contract to purchase a small house from Tarzan that he had inherited. Tarzan later changed his mind, because he liked Jane swinging in the trees with him. If Jane decides to seek legal assistance to acquire the house, which remedy should she ask for? O Quantum meruit O Promissory estoppel O Specific performance O Legal ejectment dead art
Sam Simpleton, a resident of Kansas, and Nellie Naive, a resident of Missouri, each bought $85,000 in stock at local offices in their home States from Evil Stockbrokers, Inc. (“Evil”), a business incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Both Simpleton and Naive believe that they were cheated by Evil Stockbrokers and would like to sue Evil for fraud. Assuming that no Federal question is at issue, assess the accuracy of the following statements: a. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Kansas State trial court. b. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Kansas. c. Naive can sue Evil in a Missouri State trial court. d. Naive can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Missouri.
The standard of reivew used by the Connecticut Supreme Court in determining whether the takings were constitutional under the 5th Amendment was: a. The takings were reasonably necessary to achieve the City of New London's intended public use. b. The takings were substantially necessary to achieve the City of New London's intended public use. c. There was clear and convincing evidence that the economic benefits of City of New London's plan would in fact come to pass. d. The evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt that the economic benefits of the City of New London's plan would in fact come to pass.
In the case, the Supreme Court held the content of Westboro's signs related to private matters. True False
Raymond owns a bakery on main street that specializes in making custom cookies for special events. He has twenty years of baking and cookie decorating experience and has received numerous awards for his work. Clarice enters the bakery on morning to inquire about Raymond baking some cookies for her daughter’s birthday. The two enter into a contract in which Raymond agrees to bake two dozen cookies and decorate the cookies as characters from Clarice’s daughter’s favorite show. In their discussions, Raymond tells Clarice the cookies will be ‘approximately half a pound each’ in size. As they are in America, Clarice assumes that the half a pound size refers to the weight of the cookies, knowing that the size will vary as each cookie bakes slightly differently. Raymond, however, meant the half a pound size to signify that the cookies will be the size of a half-pound sterling, the primary currency in the United Kingdom. This measurement is significantly smaller than the half a pound in…
Eric, a resident of Georgia, sued Terrance, a resident of Texas, in the federal court in California. He sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. Does the federal court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?
Greg, a consumer in Tennessee, sent a purchase order to Campbell Manufacturing, a U.S. company, for a 4000 PSI gas pressure washer valued at $1275. Greg needed a new pressure washer for his part time business of washing houses. The order did not specify how disputes between the parties would be settled. Campbell returned a definite, unconditional acceptance that contained one additional term which stated that disputes must be submitted to arbitration. Greg received the acceptance; however, he never agreed or objected to the additional term. Campbell orally contracted to sell 15 pressure washers to London Painting Company a large commercial painting company in France. Explain the status of the contract between Greg and Campbell. If a contract was formed, did the additional term in the acceptance become part of the contract? Is the contract between Campbell and London legally enforceable? (Additional research outside of the textbook may be necessary).
Explain and distinguish the reach and effect of the Bill of Rights when originally enacted and after the passage of the due process clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.
William Carlton was the sole shareholder in ten New York City corporations, including Seon Cab Corporation. Each corporation owned two taxicabs, and each cab was covered by the minimum $10,000.00 automobile liability insurance required under New York State law. A taxicab owned by Seon Cab Corporation struck and severely injured John Walkovsky, who sued for damages. Walkovsky named all ten corporations, Carlton individually, as well as the individual driving the cab that hit him, as defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the corporations, although seemingly independent of one another, operate as a single entity, unit and enterprise with regard to financing, supplies, repairs, employees, and garaging. The plaintiff asserted that the multiple corporate structure constituted an unlawful attempt to defraud members of the general public who might be injured by the cabs. He sought to hold Carlton, the sole shareholder of each corporation, personally liable for his injuries. 1. Is there…
I am not sure about the answer for this question The facts of a case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada are as follows: Mr. and Mrs. H were induced to sign a mortgage in favor of M.C.R. Ltd. by Johnston, a man living with their daughter. Johnston led them to believe that the document was an unimportant amendment to an existing mortgage when it was a second substantial mortgage on their home. Neither read the document nor questioned it. When the payments were in arrears, the mortgagee took an action for foreclosure (to take their home). Mr. and Mrs. H. pleaded non-est factum. Would this defense succeed? Why or why not? Explain your response

SEE MORE QUESTIONS