Facts: Robert J. Triffin, the Plaintiff-Appellant, appeals a case from November 5, 2009 which dismissed his complaint seeking to collect a dishonored check originally issued by Liccardi Ford, Inc, the Defendant- Respondent in The Superior Court: Law Division for criminal court. Triffin owns a business in buying dishonored checks, and attempting to collect on them. The check was postdated, and the check cashing service which Triffin purchased made a payment in violation of Check Cashers Regulatory Act of 1993(Act), N.J.S.A. 17:15A-30 to-52. The Superior Court: Law Division for criminal court held that the check cashing service was not a holder. Triffin’s complaint was properly dismissed based on evidence that the check was stolen from Liccardi. …show more content…
The Company withheld the check form Stallone because he was suspected of embezzlement. Liccardi “‘immediately placed a stop payment on the check”’. The JCNB Check Cashing, Inc. (JCNB) cashed the check for Stallone before the issue date and then deposited the check in it's own back account on or before August 9, 2007. However, the issuing bank refused to honor the check. On February 11,2009, Triffin acquired the dishonored payroll check from JCNB and sued Liccardi and Stallone for the amount of the check plus interest. The check is postdated and the check cashing service from which Triffin had purchased was in violation of Check Cashers Regulatory Act of 1993(Act), N.J.S.A 12:15A-30 to -52 which has been enacted to establish regulatory framework to protect against money …show more content…
Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) N.J.S.A 12A-3-302(a), to be a holder in due course one must take ‘“an instrument for value, in good faith and without notice of dishonor or any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person”’. Triffin did not take the Liccardi check as a holder in due course, because he purchased the instrument with notice that it had been dishonored. Therefore his case was
Boghossian and his associates did indeed commit both fraud and knowingly possessing a stolen item (R. v. Boghossian, 2015a). Mr. Boghossian and his defense counsel upon hearing this judgment decided to appeal the decision made by Justice Alfred O'Marra on the ground that his rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedom were violated. Specially his right to a trail within a reasonable amount of time guaranteed under section 11(b) as the court took over 22 months and within this time, Mr. Boghossian argued that it was unreasonably lengthy and he lost plenty of business because of it (R. v. Boghossian, 2015b). The appeal though was dismissed as they decided that section 11(b) was not infringed as 22 months was deemed as reasonable due to the complex nature of the case (R. v. Boghossian,
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Silversteins V Percudani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved October 31, 2011. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/Munley/04v1262b.pdf
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
For Tenth National Bank, we have reason to believe that the client intercepted the paper confirmation. After we sent the paper confirmation to the bank, we received an email from Lou Jennings stating that the bank forwarded the confirmation directly to their office instead of sending it to the audit team. In addition, Mr. Jennings provided login credentials and a link to the bank’s website, which did not appear to be reliable. As per the video, “How to Fight Confirmation Fraud”, presented by the founder of confirmation.com, Brian Fox, a fictitious website can be created easily. Our skepticism toward the reliability of the website is based on the unresponsiveness of most of the links on the site; the only link that works is the login button. In addition the website appeared dated and rudimentary. Another factor we found quite strange is that the website only offers paper statement deliveries, which we find highly unusual since paper statements are easier to modify. Furthermore, based on the tracking provided by USPS, the letter is still in the shipping process with no indication that Tenth National Bank has officially received the request for confirmation. This further supports our theory that Lou Jennings intercepted the Tenth National Bank confirmation letter. In our o...
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
In the case of Stadnyk vs. Commissioner, Mrs. Stadnyk bought a car from Nicholasville Auto and the car broke down on the way home from the dealership. Due to the car breaking down, she called her bank to cancel the payment order on her check due to a dissatisfied purchase. Her bank incorrectly stamped the check as insufficient funds and returned the check to Nicholasville Auto. The auto dealer proceeded to file a criminal complaint against Mrs. Stadnyk for paying with a worthless check in the amount of $1,100. Mrs. Stadnyk was then arrested at her home and taken into custody where she was detained for approximately eight hours until she posted bail. She did not suffer any physical injury from the event but she did see a psychologist for emotional suffering. Mrs. Stadnyk filed a lawsuit against the owner of the auto dealer and the bank that stamped her check incorrectly. Eventually, Mrs. Stadnyk agreed
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963); Clarence Earl Gideon is the plaintiff, and Louie L. Wainwright is the defendant.
Katz, Mitchell J. (2013). “Certegy Check Services to Pay $3.5 Million for Alleged Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Furnisher Rule” http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/08/certegy-check-services-pay-35-million-alleged-violations-fair: Retrieved on 5/20/2014
Judicial History: Trial court returned verdict for the defendant (McIntosh). Johnson appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
An artist has the right to recover damages for any intentional modification of their work of visual art which would be prejudicial to their reputation. 17 U.S.C.A. § 106A (2012). The Visual Artists Rights Act was created to protect an artist’s right to integrity with regard to works of visual art. Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 303, 324-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995). When someone intentionally modifies an artist’s work, they infringe on the artist’s right to integrity. See Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 526, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The defendant does not contest the fact that Striving for the Stars is a work of visual art. (Def’s Answer to Pl.’s
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education