Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. [20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C ...
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
Hot Coffee discusses several cases and relates each to tort reform in the United States: . Liebeck v. McDonald's Rests., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994) (judgment awarding Liebeck $2.86 million in "hot coffee" case), vacated, 1994 WL 16777704 (Nov. 28, 1994): how tort cases are publicized to instigate tort reform.
Case history; Prior: 233 F. Supp. 815 (N.D. Ala. 1964): Holding; Section 201(a), (b), and (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [1] which forbids discrimination by restaurants offering to serve interstate travelers or serving food that has moved in interstate commerce is a constitutional exercise of the commerce power of Congress.
Boise State University administrators owe Big City Coffee owner Sarah Fendley $4 million after a jury ruled unanimously in favor of Fendley and awarded her damages in her lawsuit, capping a three ...
You can find instant answers on our AOL Mail help page. Should you need additional assistance we have experts available around the clock at 800-730-2563. Should you need additional assistance we have experts available around the clock at 800-730-2563.
Alternative pleading (or pleading in the alternative) is the legal term [1] [2] in the law of the United States for a form of pleading that permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.