enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Donoghue v Stevenson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

    The full allegations made by Donoghue were presented in five condescendences, which claimed that Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue to ensure that snails did not get into his bottles of ginger beer, but that he had breached this duty by failing to provide a system to clean bottles effectively, a system that would usually be used in the business and was necessary given that the ginger ...

  3. Calder v. Jones - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Jones

    Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court within a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the author and editor of a national magazine which published an allegedly libelous article about a resident of that state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.

  4. Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd v Canada (AG) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labatt_Breweries_of_Canada...

    Labatt Breweries of Canada Limited v Attorney General of Canada: Citations [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914: Prior history: APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal ([1980] 1 FC 241), setting aside Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd v Attorney-General of Canada, 1978 CanLII 2074, 84 DLR (3d) 61 (10 January 1978) (Federal Court). Appeal allowed ...

  5. Thornell v. Jones - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornell_v._Jones

    Thornell v. Jones, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted and applied Strickland v. Washington incorrectly. The Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed, and the death sentence was reinstated. [1]

  6. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v...

    Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. , 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law . It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.

  7. Jones v. Van Zandt - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Van_Zandt

    Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 215 (1847), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of slavery that was a predecessor of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Supreme Court was then led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who owned slaves and wrote the Dred Scott decision but not Jones.

  8. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Jones_&_Laughlin...

    National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act.

  9. Jarndyce and Jarndyce - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce

    Jarndyce v Jarndyce concerns the fate of a large inheritance; due to the apparent existence of multiple wills and trusts deriving therefrom (with those containing multiple beneficiaries), the heir or heirs cannot be determined. The case has dragged on for many generations before the action of the novel, so that, by the end of the narrative when ...