Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Also, a claim for breach of trust was not accepted, because Mothew's misrepresentations did not lead him outside his authority to apply the mortgage money. At p. 16-18 Millett LJ gave a summary of the relevant law. Despite the warning given by Fletcher Moulton L.J. in In re Coomber; Coomber v.
The contract is based upon the bargain that a party forgoes its ability to sue (if it has not sued already), or to continue with the claim (if the plaintiff has sued), in return for the certainty written into the settlement. The courts will enforce the settlement. If it is breached, the party in default could be sued for breach of that contract.
The act provides immunity to the State of California and its related entities from being sued. The law immunizes public employees from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” within the scope of their employment, “even if” the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 821.6)
For example, in English law, restitution for breach of fiduciary duty is widely available but restitution for breach of contract is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types: A statutory tort; A common law tort; An equitable wrong [24] A breach of contract; Criminal offences; Note that 1–5 are all causative ...
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate courts over tort claims under state common law.
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Byers v Saudi National Bank [2022] EWCA Civ 43 that in order to sustain a claim in knowing receipt against a third party, then the claimants must have had a beneficial interest in the property at some point when it was in the defendant's hands and they had knowledge of the breach of trust. If the claimant's ...
Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v.Kempthorne and Cobell v.Norton and Cobell v.Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds.
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. [1]