Gillett v. Holt The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: '[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests. Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ...operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para. 4.13 [6] pp. 149, 151-52 [7] 26 November 1987; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No 1200 of 1987 [8] (2000) Ch 162 CA [9] (1993) 69 P & CR 170 [10] [1982] QB 84, 104-105 [11][1980] 1 WLR 1306 [12] [1976] Ch 179, 189, 198 [13] p. 224 [14] [1998] 1 FLR 806 [15] [1975] 3 All ER 768 [16] (2001) 48 EGCS 129 [17] (1996) 2 WLR 1498 [18] (1996) 72 P & CR 196, CA [19] 2nd ed (1993), p 324
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
In the case of Affleck and Damon v. Booth the primary nature of the case was in regards to their fourth amendment rights being broken; no probable cause for Booth and others to search and maintain their assets in the state of Georgia. In the District court, the ruling past onto both parties was that the case was dismissed due to Booth having no personal jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. This therefore was passed up to the Circuit court of Appeals whom overturned the lower courts decision based on the factors of the case encompassed more than the initial seizure. As both parties are not in agreement with where the trial shall be held the Supreme Court now will make a final decision based on issues to be ruled upon, material facts, and legal principles in practice.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
United States v. Nixon 1. On March 1, 1974 a grand jury returned an indictment charging seven of President Nixon's close aides with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice having to do with the Watergate Affair. 2. After President Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator, he was issued a subpoena by the U.S. District Court to produce in advance of the September 9th trial date, of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts, or other writings related to certain identified meetings between him and others. 3.
In the presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams to become the third president of the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was passed which modified another act in 1789 that established ten district courts, six circuit courts, and the addition of judges to each circuit giving the president authority to appoint federal judges. The Marbury v. Madison was a landmark case in 1803 in which the court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review. The landmark decision defined the boundary between separate judicial and executive branches of the American form of government. The Marbury v. Madison case of 1803 played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government.
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
Gardner, Bryan A. (2009). In Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West / Thomson Reuters.
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
In 1972, Nixon and his aides hired people to break into the Watergate, a hotel where Democratic election plans and budgets were stored. Nixon’s plan was to steal the campaign plans and counter them, getting the winning results. When all of this information came out, a special prosecutor working on the case asked for the tapes recording calls in the Oval Office as a part of the investigation. Nixon didn’t want to hear it, so he fired the first special prosecutor. The next one assigned to the case also wanted the tapes. Nixon finally gave up edited versions of the tapes, but the D.C. Appellate Court of Appeals wanted the full tapes, but Nixon wouldn’t let it happen. It finally was taken to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice Warren E. Burger had the task of proving Nixon guilty. But Nixon claimed he had Executive Privilege, which states that he does not have to give up confidential information involving his branch as it could be sensitive to his branch only, due to checks and balances. Nixon was eventually convicted, because of his two operations. Operation Sandwedge, and Operation Gemstone. Operation Sandwedge was essentially collecting sensitive information on the other presidential candidate that would harm his chances of being elected, and taint him in the eyes of the public. Operation Gemstone was actually the action of breaking into the hotel and stealing the information.
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Ed. Fray, William C. April 2000. Yale University. 1 May 2000. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wilson14.html)
Conflict over the working woman’s hours lead to the Muller vs. Oregon case, which was one of the most fundamental cases, and decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The issue at hand was to decide whether or not women should be limited to working a 10-hour work period each day because of the affects it may have on a woman’s mental and physical health. After much debate from both sides, the court eventually ruled in favor of the 10-hour work regulation.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association