Seminar 5 DB#2
Q. In Ceja v. Rudolph, why would Nancy succeed under a subjective test but fail under an objective test?
One of the issues in this case was that the Court must decide whether section 377.60, subdivision (b) contemplates a subjective or objective standard of good faith for putative spouse status. Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 1113, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 302 P.3d 211 (2013).
Section 377.60 (b) provides that a putative spouse is defined as “the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.”
Nancy failed under an objective test as the trial court granted the defendant’s judgement summary, ruling that she did
…show more content…
It looks to the statutory phrase “believed in good faith” and found that the meaning of the phrase is to be based on the putative spouse’s subjective view; It requires only that he/she honestly and genuinely believes that the marriage was valid. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the reasonableness of his/her subjective belief should be evaluated “as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the belief was genuinely and honestly held.” Id. And this part of evaluation requires the application of an objective view …show more content…
Id. at 1118. Nancy would succeed under a subjective test because she and decedent’s conduct after their allegedly putative marriage can reasonably infer that they were acting as a married couple. Also, due to Nancy’s lack of understanding of the marriage documents or familiarity and the inexperience with marriage and divorce processes, it is reasonable that Nancy herself believed and in her subjective state of mind under these circumstances, she genuinely thought that they were indeed married. Nancy will likely satisfy the good faith belief requirement. These facts will warrant her belief was honest as well as reasonable, as they are considered in totality of these
Similar to the sisters’ observation, the analyst initially thought that the foreign material that was floating in the bottle was a condom, however, upon examination, he was scientifically certain that the foreign object was a mold. As the trial ended, the jury favored the plaintiffs, awarding them $75,000 each. Nevertheless, the trial court decreased the jury award to $25,000 each to Hagan and Parker. Both involved parties appealed to the Fifth District Court Appeals. The appellate court concluded under the case law concerning the impact rule -that the sisters had not established a claim because they did not suffer a physical injury. The appellate court reversed the jury award.
Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small,
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit, but the cour...
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
Although marital privacy (and later personal privacy when Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, extended the rights to unmarried persons ), was at the heart of this ruling, there are many other compelling arguments in ruling this law unconstitutional. To examine these other points, including; freedom of speech/ press, right of association, privacy of the person, due process of law and the violation in restricting education, we must first have an basic understanding of the case itself.
Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment-Rummel, Solem and The Venerable Case of Weems v. United States. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1984:789. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2886&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2886%2526context%253Ddlj%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0U6qTJJcBT1EoWmQVHDXIojJgBHw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2886%26context%3Ddlj%22
The best interest of a child should be achieved when a court determines custody. In Hunsberger v Hunsberger, where both the father and the mother were seeking a sole custody of their child who was five-year-old boy, the father filed for divorce after knowing that his wife was seeing another man, and both of them agreed to have a split custody. After filing for divorce, they continued living together until the mother voluntarily gave possession of the residence to the father. After the factors for custody determination stated by IN Code § 31-17-2-8 were examined, the trial court held that the sole custody was given to the mother. However, the father appealed to the court of appeals claiming that the court abused its discretion. The court of
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
The first issue is whether this potential piece of legislation would violate SDP and if divorce is a fundamental right.
This Court has held that two elements must be met for a defendant to be willfully blind. The first element is the “defendant
The judge exhibited a strong mathematical fallacy when he assumed that repeating the test could not tell us anything about the reliability of the first results. What he didn’t realize was that by doing a test twice and obtaining the same result, it would tell us something about the possible accuracy of the original result.