(the People, Plaintiff and Respondent V. J.B., Defendant and Appellant)

In: Business and Management

Submitted By sandrine19
Words 1455
Pages 6
Case 1
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
J.B., Defendant and Appellant.

1- The facts of the case
Appellant J.B. (minor) was found to have committed felony false imprisonment on evidence he and three other young men surrounded and tripped a man. The victim, who did not speak English, did not understand what the young men said in the course of the incident, and he was unable to identify any particular action by the minor, other than his participation in the initial surrounding. The minor contends there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding he committed felony false imprisonment because it was not shown that he personally used "violence," as that term is defined in the law of false imprisonment. 2- The law that were affected is criminal law ,personal crimes 3- The issues at hand is false imprisonment. In a petition filed on December 5, 2012, the minor was alleged to have committed attempted second degree robbery, assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, and false imprisonment by means of force and violence. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found not true the allegations of attempted robbery and assault, but it found true the allegation of false imprisonment by means of force and violence. The minor was held to be a ward of the court and released to the custody of his mother. 4- The juvenile court's finding that the minor committed felony false imprisonment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for entry of an amended dispositional order finding the minor to have committed misdemeanor false imprisonment. 5- The court held that way because there was no evidence that the minor personally took any additional action. 6- I don’t think the decision was fair. There was sufficient evidence to support a finding the minor committed misdemeanor false…...

Similar Documents

Ernst & Young V Maxbiz Corp Bhd.Pdf

...206 Malayan Law Journal [2009] 1 MLJ Ernst & Young v Maxbiz Corp Bhd COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA) — CIVIL APPEAL NO W-02–987 OF 2007 GOPAL SRI RAM, HELILIAH AND AHMAD MAAROP JJCA 30 APRIL 2008 Civil Procedure — Striking out — Action — Whether plaintiff would succeed on pleaded case — Whether appellate court could examine documents and facts to decide whether plaintiff had cause of action — Whether would amount to usurpation of function of trial judge Tort — Negligence — Duty of care — Three fold test — Whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care — Whether meticulous examination of facts and circumstances called for A B C D E The plaintiff/respondent was jointly incorporated by two other companies, to take over the assets and liabilities and to inject capital into Geahin Engineering Bhd (‘Geahin’), a public listed company, which had become financially strained. The defendant/appellant was the auditor of Geahin and the adviser of the restructuring scheme. The plaintiff ’s case in the court below was that during the course of the restructure, the defendant had rendered advice to it upon which it acted to its detriment. However, the defendant contended that its advice was accompanied with a caution which sufficiently excluded the defendant from liability to the plaintiff and therefore sought an order to strike out the plaintiff ’s claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. The application was dismissed by the High Court...

Words: 1864 - Pages: 8

Normile and Kurniawan V. Miller; Segal V. Miller

...Normile and Kurniawan v. Miller; Segal v. Miller 3313 N.C. 98; 326 S.E.2d 11; 1985 N.C. LEXIS 1521 Facts: Plaintiff-appellants (Normile) made an offer on the defendant (Miller) seller’s home. Defendant responded with a counter-offer. The plaintiff never accepted or rejected the counter-offer and believed the house was still on the market. The next day the defendant sold the house to the plaintiff-appellee (Segal). The plaintiff-appellants are suing for specific performance, as did the plantiff-appllee, in separate actions which were consolidated by the lower court. The counter-offer by the defendant did not constitute a binding and enforceable contract. The defendant then properly revoked the counter-offer by selling the property to plaintiff-appellee and thus gave plaintiff-appellants notice of that revocation. Procedural history: Appealed from Court of Appeals for North Carolina. Currently at Supreme Court of North Carolina. Issue: Was there a clear offer and acceptance between Normile and Miller? Holding: No, Miller’s counteroffer was a revoke of Normile’s offer since it was never accepted by both parties and was not a mirror image contract. Rule of Law: An offer is a promise to do something or to refrain from doing some specific thing. An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it. An acceptance is an offeree’s......

Words: 419 - Pages: 2

Case Brief Soldano V. O’daniels Court of Appeals of California March 28, 1983 Statement of Facts a Patron of Happy Jack’s Saloon Went Across the Street to the Circle Inn to Talk with the Owner of the Two Establishments.

...Dustin SOLDANO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Howard O'DANIELS, Defendant and Respondent. 141 Cal.App.3d 443, 190 Cal.Rptr. 310 Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. (March 28, 1983) OPINION ANDREEN, Associate Justice. Does a business establishment incur liability for wrongful death if it denies use of its telephone to a good samaritan who explains an emergency situation occurring without and wishes to call the police? This appeal follows a judgment of dismissal of a complaint for wrongful death upon a motion for summary judgment...[by defendant]. "This action arises out of a shooting death occurring on August 9, 1977. Plaintiff's father [Darrell Soldano] was as shot and killed by one Rudolph Villanueva on that date at defendant's Happy Jack's Saloon. This defendant [O'Daniels] owns and operates the Circle Inn which is an eating establishment located across the street from Happy Jack's. Plaintiff's second cause of action against this defendant is one for negligence. "Plaintiff [Soldano] alleges that on the date of the shooting, a patron of Happy Jack's Saloon came into the Circle Inn and informed a Circle Inn employee that a man had been threatened at Happy Jack's. He requested the employee either call the police or allow him to use the Circle Inn phone to call the police. That employee allegedly refused to call the police and allegedly refused to allow the patron to use the phone to make his own call. Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the Circle Inn employee were...

Words: 2016 - Pages: 9

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Monte Dale Thompson, Defendant-Appellant

...Case 1 25 F.3d 1558: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Monte Dale Thompson, Defendant-appellant Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Parties to the case: F. Robert Raley, Macon, GA, for appellant and Edgar Ennis, U.S. Atty., Dixie A. Morrow, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, GA, for appellee. Facts: Thompson did stipulate to the fact that he had pawned and possessed numerous firearms. He also did specify that he signed the transaction records which were wrongly mentioned in the previous conviction of an offense when he did pawn the firearms. In sequence to this conviction, Thompson, based on the entrapment by estoppel, filed a motion for the judgment to have an alternate trial when judge refused to allow the presentation. Also “R1:59-2. Thompson further stipulated that all of the firearms he possessed were shipped or transported in interstate commerce prior to his possession. R1:59-1.” The case was convicted in the Superior court of Clayton in Georgia the time when Thompson did possess the firearms of armed robbery. Prior to the case, he was working for federal and local law enforcement agencies an informant (undercover). Thompson was very much involved with such activities thus was feeling very pertinent to the law enforcement community. Analysis: The arguments made by Thompson; as he thought he would not be prosecuted for crimes he would commit except murder. He made this fact on the basis of oral grant the AUSA gave him in...

Words: 1722 - Pages: 7

Peter O. Mattei, Appellant, V.
 Amelia F. Hopper, Respondent.

...Amy Harris (003482361) Mgmt 490 March 12, 2014 Beechko Peter O. Mattei, Appellant, v.
 Amelia F. Hopper, Respondent. Facts: The plaintiff Peter Mattei was a real estate investor looking to purchase land from the defendant Amelia Hopper. The defendant seemed hesitant to sell her land, rejecting many offers that the plaintiff had proposed to her. After so many offers went rejected by the defendant in this case, the defendant submitted an offer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff quickly accepted the offer the same day it was submitted. When the agreement was reached the two worked with a real estate agent and came up with a contract that would require a $1000 deposit. The contract also included a clause that would allow 120 days from the initiation of the contract to examine the title and consummate the purchase. This clause developed at the request of the defendant. The first performance of the contract was made by the defendant by submitting the $1000 deposit to the real estate agent. However, the defendant had her attorney contact the plaintiff, and disclose that she was no longer going to sell her land under the contract terms. After this contact between the attorney and the plaintiff, the plaintiff sent notice that he obtained secured leases and offered to pay the remaining purchase price. The Defendant however never submitted the deed for the land. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. Issue: The issue in this case appears to be whether......

Words: 704 - Pages: 3

Zelma M. Mitchell, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976.

...M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976. Facts:  After being terminated from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Petitioner Zelma Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but was denied by the Unemployment Security Commission due to the nature of her termination, pursuant to § 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. Issue:  The issue is to determine whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 and whether these actions were enough to warrant denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Rule: Though the term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law, the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopts the definition used by The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941). Application:  Based on the newly adopted definition of misconduct, the court holds that Mrs. Mitchell’s inappropriate attire, insubordination, and name calling display unruly conduct and lack of regard for the Center. Conclusion:  The Supreme Court reverses the decision of the district court and reinstates the decision of the Commission, holding that the employee’s misconduct justifies denying unemployment benefits. Table of Authorities Cases Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) 2 Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON......

Words: 262 - Pages: 2

Claims for Damages Under ''Wrongful Life'' in Harriton V Stephens

...in Harriton v Stephens The plaintiff’s mother contracted rubella while she was pregnant, and as a consequence of the infection the appellant was born suffering from severe congenital disabilities. She brought an action against her mother’s doctor, who had failed to diagnose the rubella, alleging that she had suffered damage in living her profoundly disabled life and would had been better not to be born. The epithet ″wrongful life″ is where a child was born with profound disabilities, whose mother would have elected to terminate her pregnancy had she been aware that there was a real risk of the child being born with such disabilities, whereas in ″wrongful birth″ is where unplanned or unwanted child was born following the negligence of a medical practitioner where the patient undergoes sterilisation or vasectomy to prevent conception. The major difference between ″wrongful birth″ and ″wrongful life″ is that actions are brought in the former by the parents while actions are brought in the later by or for the child. Another difference between the two is that ″wrongful life″ focuses on the relative values of existence and non-existence, and such fact, is not featured in a case of ″wrongful birth.″ The common feature is both require a birth but the plaintiff in ″wrongful life″ both exists and suffers. In Curlender v Bio-Science Laboratories where general damages were awarded the Court said: ″The reality of the ′wrongful life′ concept is that such plaintiff both......

Words: 2165 - Pages: 9

Nadel Et Al., Appellants, V. Burger King Corporation

...Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. NADEL et al., Appellants, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION et al., Appellees. No. C-960489. -- May 21, 1997 Edward J. Felson and Stephen R. Felson, Cincinnati, for appellants. Jonathan P. Saxton, Cincinnati, for appellee Burger King Corporation. Droder & Miller Co., L.P.A., A. Dennis Miller and Kevin J. Ryan, Cincinnati, for appellee Emil, Inc. I. Facts On a morning in early December 1993, plaintiff-appellant Paul Nadel was driving his son, plaintiff-appellant Christopher, and two younger daughters, Ashley and Brittany, to school.1  Paul's mother, plaintiff-appellant Evelyn Nadel, was seated next to the passenger window.   Christopher was seated in the front seat between Evelyn and Paul, with one foot on the transmission hump and one foot on the passenger side of the hump.   Brittany and Ashley were in the back seat.   On the way, they ordered breakfast from the drive-through window of a Burger King restaurant owned and operated by defendant-appellee Emil, Inc. (“Emil”) under a franchise agreement with defendant-appellee Burger King Corporation (“BK”).   Paul's order included several breakfast sandwiches and drinks and two cups of coffee.   The cups of coffee were fitted with lids and served in a cardboard container designed to hold four cups, with the two cups placed on opposite diagonal corners.   Emil's employee served the coffee through the car window to Paul, who passed it to Christopher, who handed it to......

Words: 5512 - Pages: 23

Case Study : People V Perkins

...Napolitano Term Paper Dennis Consumano People v Perkins On July 26th, 2010 , Perkins had been charged with six offenses. They were: Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired, Resisting Arrest, Unlawful Fleeing a Police Officer in a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree, Reckless Driving and Driving at an Excessive Speed. Over the next two years, Perkins appeared in New York Court 25 different times. Perkins had traveled from her home in North Carolina each time. The People had answered “not ready” on many occasions. This, of course, goes against one of the CPLs we covered; CPL 30.30, which deals with speedy trial time limitations, in particular section (1)(b) which states “(b) ninety days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony” (Findlaw). March 22nd, 2012, four misdemeanor charges were dismissed on the grounds of CPL 30.30. The remaining two traffic infractions, however, were not dismissed. That is, until July 24th, 2012, when Perkins motioned to dismiss these remaining two charges. Citing, more specifically, CPL 30.20 which deals with speedy trials in general. Perkins claims that, this 90 day limitation is now two years, and her right to a speedy trial has been violated. Being that the delays were all caused by the People, at the expense of Perkins, who has......

Words: 310 - Pages: 2

Porter V Wertz

...Porter v Wertz (Powers) Citation. 22 Ill.53 N.Y.2d 696, 439 N.Y.S.2d 105, 421 N.E.2d 500 (1981) Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff- Appellant allowed Von Maker (who posed as Wertz) borrow a painting to decide if Von Maker wished to buy the painting. Von Maker eventually sold the painting to a third party who resold the painting to a person in Venezuela, and Plaintiff- Appellant seeks to recover the painting. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Equitable estoppel as a defense against the rightful owner is not available to Defendants unless each element of the defense is proven, specifically, that the rightful owner gave indicia of ownership to another who had the apparent right to sell and that the buyer exercised good faith in the purchase. Facts. Plaintiff- Appellant (Porter) owned a painting by Utrillo named “Chateau de Lion-sur-Mer,” which he loaned to one who was actually named Von Maker but was posing as Wertz. The loan of the painting was made along with a purchase of another painting, which Wertz agreed to pay for in a deposit and a series of notes. When the first note was not honored, Plaintiff- Appellant sought to retrieve the Utrillo from Von Maker (posing as Wertz). Plaintiff- Appellant could not get in touch with Von Maker, but hired an investigator and discovered that he had not been dealing with Wertz, but had been dealing with Von Maker, who had a long history of fraudulent dealings. Thereafter, Plaintiff- Appellant made a contract with Von Maker (represented by counsel)...

Words: 884 - Pages: 4

Zelma M. Mitchell, Appellant, V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.,

...ZELMA M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Appellee. No. 10847. SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 89 NM 575,555 P. 2d 696 (1976) October 27, 1976, Decided Attorney for the defendant-appellant: Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovingto Attorney for the plaintiff-appellee: Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque Opinion by: Justice Sosa Facts: Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. employed Zelma M. Mitchell on July 4, 1972 in the position of Nurse Aide. After one year of employment with no noted reprimands, additional duties as a relief medications nurse were assigned two days per week. The plaintiff came to work on April 2, 1974, during a Federal inspection, out of uniform. She refused to go home and change, after asked to do so. The following day, the plaintiff arrived at work out of uniform again. On this occasion, she did go home to change after asked to do so. According to Betty Clarke, R.N., on May 15, 1972, in addition to other days, the plaintiff was obstinate and sang while dispensing medications. Clarke reported this behavior to Charge Nurse Stroope. On May 24, 1974, the plaintiff refused to give out medications as instructed by Ms. Stroope. The plaintiff made insulting remarks about the Nurse Aide, Carol Scurlock and Ms. Stroope on that day. Between May 24, 1974 and June 4, 1974, the plaintiff refused to complete her duties as relief medication aide. The plaintiff, Zelma M.......

Words: 650 - Pages: 3

Ang Yu V. Ca

...CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. DECISION VITUG, J.: Assailed, in this petition for review, is the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 04 December 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 26345 setting aside and declaring without force and effect the orders of execution of the trial court, dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991, in Civil Case No. 87-41058. The antecedents are recited in good detail by the appellate court thusly: "On July 29, 1987 a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance was filed by Ann Yu Asuncion and Keh Tiong, et al., against Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila in Civil Case No. 87-41058, alleging, among others, that plaintiffs are tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned by defendants described as Nos. 630-638 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila; that they have occupied said spaces since 1935 and have been religiously paying the rental and complying with all the conditions of the lease contract; that on several occasions before October 9, 1986, defendants informed plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the premises and are giving them priority to acquire the same; that during the negotiations, Bobby Cu Unjieng offered a price of P6-million while plaintiffs made a counter offer of P5-million; that plaintiffs thereafter asked the defendants to put their offer in writing to which request defendants acceded; that in reply to defendants' letter, plaintiffs wrote them......

Words: 4537 - Pages: 19

Kahn V. Pub Zone

...typed, and at least 12 point font. Thoroughly discuss the premise of the case, the procedure as to what happened, and the facts involved. Make correlations between what you’ve learned in the class and relate it to specific legal theories. Demonstrate these by walking through the elements needed to prove the particular Cause of Action. Rules for correct grammar, syntax, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation must be observed. Papers must be the sole work of the student. Give yourself a break as reading law cases is new & different than other types of content. You may need to read the case 3 times to get used to this type of writing. Work should be submitted in MS Word, and name your file in this manner: Your 1st Initial, Last Name-Case# Plaintiff Name. Ex.:JSheetz_Case1_Kuehn. If you need assistance with your writing, you may refer to North Lake College’s Writing Center. Located in Room A309, the Writing Center is open 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Thursday and 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Friday. Saturday hours are 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Students can also call 972-273-3089, or email nlcwritingcenter@dcccd.edu. Finally, another resource for students is to The Elements of Style, by Strunk & White. Points to consider in your analysis ▪ The general facts (explain briefly why the parties are in dispute)? ▪ How does the case relate to the reading material (specific pages and chapters, which topic and how)? ▪ What was the legal decision of the court (the case specifically......

Words: 9089 - Pages: 37

Barbara J. O'Neil Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, V. Crane Co. Et Al., Defendants and Respondents

...2012 BARBARA J. O'NEIL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CRANE CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. S177401 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 53 Cal. 4th 335; 266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,765 January 12, 2012, Filed INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent plaintiff released from external insulation and internal gaskets and packing. During World War II, defendants sold parts to the United States Navy for use in the steam propulsion systems of warships. These Steam systems were extremely hot and highly pressurized, requiring insulation. Navy specifications made use of asbestos insulation required at the time and products that did not conform to the use were rejected. However no evidence was presented that asbestos was needed in order for the valves to function properly also the defendant did not manufacture the asbestos packing gaskets used in its valves. Once parts were received by the navy, they were integrated into other components such as boilers and piping with asbestos-containing flange gaskets. However neither of the defendants produced the flange gaskets.......

Words: 1470 - Pages: 6

Processing a Defendant

...Unit 4 Corrections and Prisons August 12, 2012 Abstract Today we will be discussing how a defendant is processed through a federal case. This is exceptionally important because your actions or absence of actions as law enforcement during the detaining of these suspects can result in the difference between their prosecution or release under federal statue. This presentation will also act as a checklist as well as provide additional information that you may need while in the field or throughout the proceedings of this case. Understand that your participation in this case may not be limited to just arresting or the processing of evidence; you may be utilized as a witness, under oath, in front of a federal court of law. Federal Investigation Outline Format for Presentation Process 1.0 Investigation 1.1 Evidence: - It is evidence that leads the prosecutor to believe he has a "Strong case", meaning there is strong evidence that the person or persons have committed the crime. Direct evidence would include a witness who saw the crime happen, video/audio tape of the crime, and statements done by witnesses, of the crime. Circumstantial evidence may come from someone who did not see the crime first-hand; it includes someone's feelings on multiple indicators in the theory of the crime, even though that person did not see the crime take place. 1.2 Decision to Charge: Prosecutors study all information provided by the investigators, and......

Words: 4401 - Pages: 18