2018/2019. 6 In the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 , the Papakura Courthouse was where the Pitcairn Supreme Court sat to hear the case. It is an aspect of nuisance; C1600226 Hamilton County Common Pleas case no. v. Moline Builders, et al. Case Summaries. Case management lists Annual statistics High Court File and Pay Contact ... District Court Te Kōti ā Rohe. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002 (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. Section 1415(i) of the IDEA, which permits a party aggrieved by the findings and decision of the BSEA to bring a civil action in a District Court of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamilton_v_Papakura_District_Council&oldid=882520985, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, [2000] 1 NZLR 265, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] UKPC 9, This page was last edited on 9 February 2019, at 18:04. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND-----JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL _” refers to pages in the consecutively paginated trial transcript. The suburb makes up the southernmost part of the Auckland metropolitan area. Hamilton, Don, INNZNA (1) Leigh, Jack, INNZNA (1 ... Moore, Kelvin Description: Papakura District Council hopes to acquire 17 hectares of the old Papakura Army camp. $30.00: Privy Council Wellington [2002] UKPC 9 28 February 2002 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. R v F Opinion Final. Hamilton v Watercare and Papakura District Council. “Add. The Waikato District Council and Hamilton City Council will also vote on the business case at their respective meetings this month and NZTA to consider the project in December. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. The court said that the action of the auditor was not final, so as to cut off further inquiry, but that the whole case might be gone into anew by proper proceedings in court. FROM. 57 of 2000 (1) G.J. As support for this statement, the treatise cites one case, Hamilton’s Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F. 3d 644, 650 (CA6 2007). Could Watercare have foreseen that after run-off into the water storage reservoir with its consequent dilution, the town water would have proved … Law & Lai v Waitakere City Council (2003, H Ct & Ct App) Prosecution and penalties under Building Act. denied, 118 S. Ct. 688 (1998) is a case about the least restrictive environment for a child with autism. The Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. Moline Builders, Inc. (N.D. Ohio) On August 10, 2020, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in Ability Center, et al. Hamilton and (2) M.P. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. The implied term was in issue in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308. Type Article OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Is part of Journal Title New Zealand law reports (Leading cases) Author(s) New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. Neither should we permit a death sentence to stand that raises such doubts as does Fisher's conviction on this record. C-790380 (Hamilton County Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, 1982). brief as amici curiae, urging. Preist v Last [1903] 2 KB 148. Comments. Opaheke is a suburb of Auckland, in northern New Zealand. Opaheke is a suburb of Auckland, in northern New Zealand. 49507-4-II Decided: August 22, 2017. 2d 702, 118 P ... One of the flagrant examples of the discriminatory results of segregation in two of the schools involved in this case is shown by the record. 2623 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 HAMILTON CORNER I, LLC, Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPAVINE, Respondent. THE STATE EX REL.ST.CLAIR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES ET AL. Previous: Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co Limited [1905] 1 KB... Library availability. [Cite as State ex rel. Hamilton v Papakura District Council - [2002] 3 NZLR 308. Eg In the main text: The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council. Case 4:20-cv-07331-JSW Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 27 Michael Greenstone, Adam Looney & Harrison Marks, The U.S. Immigration System: Potential Benefits of Reform, The Hamilton … However, if a sentence contains multiple cases and a footnote is required for each case, place the footnote number after the reference to each case. This site contains information about the District Court and publishes judicial decisions in a searchable database of District Court judgments including decisions on criminal, family, youth and civil matters. _” refers to documents filed in the district court by docket number. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (foreseeable) So random and sensitive unforseeable. We do not provide advice. Hamilton and ‘ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC Judges: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith Statutes: Sale of Goods Act 1893 14 Jurisdiction: England and Wales This case cites: These lists may be incomplete. 20-cv-30006-egs hon. Acting for Papakura District Council in High Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council to successfully defend claims arising from supply of water to hydroponic tomato grower. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher.[1]. “Doc. However, the impact of the law of agency as contained in the savings provision of s 60(2) was not considered in regard to the implied communication by the agent of the buyer to an agent of the seller. Other Courts Ētahi atu kōti. 2016-1648 On appeal from the First District Court of Appeals, Hamilton County, case no. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 Irvine & Co Ltd v Dunedin City Corporation [1939] NZLR 741 Ports of Auckland v Auckland City Council [1999] 1 NZLR 600 No such duty was established. It is located on the shores of the Pahurehure Inlet, approximately 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. State v. Pembaur, 9 Ohio St.3d 136, 459 N.E.2d 217, cert. Petitioner's Brief on the Merits. Located to the south of the Papakura, and 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. issuance and application of its 2015 Final Rule on Representation Case Procedures (“Election Rule” or “Rule”). — Hamilton Corner I LLC, appeals from a superior court decision affirming the city council's confirmation of the city of Napavine's local improvement district (LID) assessment levied against Hamilton Corner's properties. Owens Transport Co v Watercare Services Ltd (foreseeable) Water leak forseeable. 3.1 Case Law In Winstone Aggregates Limited v Papakura District Council (Environment Court, 2002) State v. Pembaur, No. Official website of the District Courts of New Zealand. The water company had done this. Attorney General v Forestry Corporation of NZ Ltd [2003] 1 NZLR 721 (Ct App) Waiver of covenant by unilateral declaration That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura). Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) Claim for damage to crops from contaminated water. Cited – Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd PC 28-Feb-2002 (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. Herbicide leaked into water storage. Mark Hartmann v. Loudoun Co. School Board, 118 F.3d. Only full case reports are accepted in court. In that case, the Privy Council found inadequacy in the direction given by the trial court on considerations that were not mentioned in the courts below nor raised by the appellant. These law notes are intended to assist with your studies of the law, through concise topic notes and easy-to-digest case summaries. ... (Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 277, para 49): NZ Court of Appeal. Please sign in … Two years after the Greer decision, the case of (Rafael) Oberti v. the Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (1993) was decided. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Syndrome. They claimed that this was a breach of the Sale of Goods Act [1908]. Opaheke is under authority of the Papakura District Council. Rafael was an eight year old boy, also with Down's. (0082247) STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON CO., L.P.A. denied, 467 U.S. 1219 (1984). Charged with a category 4 offence; Charged with a protocol offence; You have been charged with a category 2 or 3 offence and a High Court has made an order that you be tried in the High Court Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308. Located at -37.0833, 174.967 (Lat. Water … 1997, cert. 6 In addition to the Local Council Chambers, Papakura is served by a large police station (one of Auckland's busiest), a District Court, and a WINZ office. A decision on a point not necessary for the purpose or which does not fall to be determined in that decision becomes obiter dictum. 996 (4th Cir. Most District Courts will display court lists of cases in the public area of the court. 0 0. civil action no. ... Hamilton v Papakura District Council This page was last edited on 2 January 2014, at 01:14 (UTC). of Trustees v.Hamilton, 156 Ohio St.3d 272, 2019-Ohio-717.] It has been the subject of a number of Environment Court cases, is present in several district and regional plans and policies and has been discussed in central government guidelines. No. The Honourable Justice Chambers states; “The moment one states that as a proposition, one realises that it is absurd to continue talking about nuisance or Rylands v Fletcher as strict liability torts. Study 20 Ratio And Key Points From Rylands flashcards from Melissa H. on StudyBlue. (hot air/paper case) Hamilton & Anor v Papakura District Council & Anor [2000] 1 NZLR 265. You can find out when your case is being heard by calling 0800 COURTS (0800 268 787) between 8:30am and 5:00pm Monday to Friday or by asking at the court. 811, 813 (D.Md.1994). St. Clair Twp. (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. Course. “Exh.” refers to exhibits filed at trial. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) is an independent, nationwide nonprofit organization of attorneys, advocates, and parents in forty -nine states and the District of Columbia, who are routinely involved in special education 110, 259 P. 730; Becker v. Council of City of Albany, 47 Cal. ... "Storing large amounts of chemicals is a classic case of non-natural use" Owens Transport v Watercare Services Ltd 319 (E.D. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. This case originated in New Jersey and was heard by the Third Circuit. Bd. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council, 855 F.Supp. 22. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Scott and Lothian NHS Board: SIC 14 Feb 2013, Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2004. Hamilton v Papakura District Council - [2000] 1 NZLR 265. ), about 2 miles away. Brief discussions of some of these are outlined below. CiteTEXT TM. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the -opinion of the Court. This is … In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the rule was amended to include that the damage created was “foreseeable” This rule was further endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265. The District Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs-Appellants’ complaint under 20 U.S.C. However, if a sentence contains multiple cases and a footnote is required for each case, place the footnote number after the reference to each case. Study 7 Case Briefs: Rylands v Fletcher flashcards from Alex R. on StudyBlue. (aff PC [2002] 3 NZLR 308). When they found their crop had been destroyed, they claimed that the water supply company and the local council were at fault, claiming that the water was contaminated by minute traces of herbicide in the water supply. Charles H. Tuttle filed a brief for the Protestant Coun-cil of New York City, as amicus curiae. (High Court and above) Hugh Green Ltd v Auckland Council [2018] NZHC 2916 Judicial review and legitimate expectation Seafield Farm (HB) Ltd v Hastings District Council [2018] NZHC 1980 Review of Council resource consent Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018] NZHC 1959; [2018] NZHC 269 Designation for expansion of Queenstown Airport Aztek … Continue reading … In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the rule was amended to include that the damage created was “foreseeable” This rule was further endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265. _” refers to pages in the defendants’ opening brief. Supreme Court case no. Bd. “Br. v.THE CITY OF HAMILTON ET AL. Located at -37.0833, 174.967 (Lat. [ 16] On 24 August 2005 the Papakura District Council issued a Notice to Fix pursuant to ss 164 and 165 Building Act 2004 which apparently had the effect of halting further work until the Council's concerns over the work undertaken by the defendants was satisfactorily addressed. District Council and Hamilton City Council. The LGA provides (on the links below) up to date names of Mayors and CEOs and general email addresses of the councils they represent. Study 7 Case Briefs: Rylands v Fletcher flashcards from Alex R. on StudyBlue. The relevant law here in New Zealand would be the (with respect) witterings of the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 where it recognised that Rylands v Fletcher liability continued to exist, with the following three qualifications: 1. 4 of 6 Dr Steven Joynes CV ... Papakura District Council, 2009 The preparation of a Modelling … The Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, and the National Partnership for Juvenile Services ... et al. The suburb makes up the southernmost part of the Auckland metropolitan area. WORSWICK, J. To begin your search enter a keyword or phrase into the search box. Eg In the main text: The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council , Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council . This case relates to the power of a state to utilize its tax-supported public school system in aid of religious Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 (28 February 2002) Privy Council Appeal No. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. Located to the south of the Papakura, and 32 kilometres south of Auckland CBD. (1) Whether the District Court correctly determined that the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. Respondent's Brief on the Merits. An exactly opposite conclusion was reached by the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Meyers v… Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Steven was the inaugural Chairman of the Special ... Legal case defending a client who has been sued for caused neighbor flooding . The country's first urban growth partnership will see co-ordinated development between Auckland and Hamilton, is set to be signed off by Government ministers, local mayors and mana whenua today. Pa. 1989) Ferguson v. The Ashington Piggeries case did not apply because in this case there was one supply of one product. Kwaku Mensah v. Rex, [1946] A.C. 83, 94. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] UKPC 9, [2002] 3 NZLR 308 . / Lng. Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. Merritt v Merritt [1970] separation Welch v Jess [1976] Friends agreed to enter a fishing competition together and share the prize. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. § 300101, et seq., does not provide a private right of action to the Tribe under the facts of this case; and, Case: 17-1951 Document: 00117265759 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 Entry ID: 6156576 D V. University. “Tr. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Lend substance to your arguments by using the language of the court instead of relying on third-party headnotes. Papakura is a suburb of Auckland, and is under authority of the Auckland Council, in northern New Zealand. The Hamiltons grew hydroponic cherry tomatoes, using the Papakura town water supply to supply their water needs. A1503940 BRIEF OF AMICA CURIAE ALEXANDRIA GODDARD IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION Jeffrey M. Nye, Esq. Please note: The LGA is unable to provide to either our own members or non-members with the direct email addresses for Mayors and CEOs unless so authorised by the LGA Board of Directors to do so. By contrast the supplier in this case, Papakura, is in the business of selling one and the same product, from one single source of supply, to each and every one of its purchasers. Hamilton is a port city in the Canadian province of Ontario.An industrialized city in the Golden Horseshoe at the west end of Lake Ontario, Hamilton has a population of 536,917, and its census metropolitan area, which includes Burlington and Grimsby, has a population of 747,545.The city is 58 kilometres (36 mi) southwest of Toronto in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). (N.D. Ohio). Pages in category "Papakura District" The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage. Papakura District Council case that it was established that there is no difference in the foreseeability test between nuisance and negligence. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (2002) Hamilton claimed that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × CDW participated in the Board’s notice and comment rulemaking process and was one of several plaintiffs that brought a facial challenge to the Rule before the United States District Court for the District … The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. / Lng. Defendant won but refused to share. Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245 ... Badaracco, 202 Cal. ‍ Silverfield Developments Limited v Downer Construction (NZ) Limited Obtain highly relevant search results directly from a brief (or other associated legal document), bypassing the need to reformulate case facts into searchable legal propositions. united states district court for the district of columbia purdue university et al., plaintiffs, v. eugene scalia, secretary of labor et al., defendants. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. Helpful? $30.00: Court of Appeal Wellington 16, 17 August; 29 September 1999 Gault, McGechan and Paterson JJ. The State of Bombay [1956] SCR 382 @ 392, 393; Smith v. East Elloc Rural District Council & ors. To search for a judgment, choose a filter type from the Filter Search dropdown list to search by a court or judgment type, ie choose All Judgments for a general search. Hamilton Appellants. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. at 314-320 and 325-332 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a case decided on June 25, 1984, by the United States Supreme Court.The case is famous for establishing the extent to which a federal court, in reviewing a federal government agency's action, should defer to the agency’s construction of a statute that the agency has been delegated to administer. [Cite as State ex rel. Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.167739 br>. ), about 2 miles away. The Attorney General for the Province of Ontario v Hamilton Street Railway Company and others (Ontario) Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is no guarantee that anything on this site is factually correct – and this guarantee is in writing; though the site is correct to best of the writer’s knowledge.. To get started, please click on a topic above, or search for a case. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District , the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh how much students should benefit from special education. University of Otago. Introduction to Law (LAWS 101) Academic year. This agreement established that the advertising satisfies the first two parts of the test the Supreme Court prescribed for determining whether regulation of commercial speech violates the First Amendment. A similar suit seeking like relief was brought on October 29, 1919, by Dryfoos, Blum & Co., in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, against Edwards, collector for that district. emmet g. sullivan brief for the american council on education and 23 other higher education organizations as amici curiae in … U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturns federal district court decision. [1966] 1 SCR 709, referred to. Mandamus—Writ sought to compel city to pay township for lost tax revenue App. Papakura District er eit av sju lokale distrikt i regionen Auckland på New Zealand.Det ligg nær den sørlegaste delen av Auckland City, og utgjer delar av områda som uformelt vert kalla South Auckland og East Auckland (Sør- og Aust-Auckland).. ... Hamilton v Papakura District Council. St. Clair Twp. Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. [1966] AC 736 at 776 and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and ors. _” refers to … v. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents. The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. of Trustees v.Hamilton, 156 Ohio St.3d 272, 2019-Ohio- 717.] affirmance. Share. Opaheke is under authority of the Papakura District Council. That case was heard on November 5 before the District Judge on like motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss. seller must know buyer is relying on its skill and judgement Hamilton v Papakura District Council and … References: Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9 Links: PC, (1) G.J. Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd, Knud Wendelboe and Others v LJ Music Aps, In Liquidation: ECJ 7 Feb 1985, Morina v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 4051) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Angelidis v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jul 1984, Bahr v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2155) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1271) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1984, Eisen Und Metall Aktiengesellschaft v Commission: ECJ 16 May 1984, Bertoli v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1649) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Mar 1984, Abrias v Commission (Rec 1985,P 1995) (Judgment): ECJ 3 Jul 1985, Alfer v Commission (Rec 1984,P 799) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Iro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1409) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 1984, Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1847) (Judgment): ECJ 5 Apr 1984, Favre v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2269) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Michael v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4023) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Dec 1983, Cohen v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3829) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Nov 1983, Albertini and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2123) (Judgment): ECJ 17 May 1984, Aschermann v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 30 May 1984, Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 777) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1861) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3689) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Nov 1983, Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek Bv v Commission (Order): ECJ 26 Nov 1985, Boel v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2041) (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1983, Kohler v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 641) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1543) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Mar 1984, Steinfort v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3141) (Judgment): ECJ 20 Oct 1983, De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4001) (Order): ECJ 22 Nov 1982, Trefois v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 3751) (Judgment): ECJ 17 Nov 1983, Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro: ECJ 31 Jan 1984, Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 557) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Feb 1984, Schoellershammer v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4219) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1983, Unifrex v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 1969) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Apr 1984, Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3075) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Oct 1983, Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1195) (Judgment): ECJ 29 Feb 1984, Developpement Sa and Clemessy v Commission (Rec 1986,P 1907) (Sv86-637 Fi86-637) (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1986, Turner v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1) (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jan 1984, Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3105) (Judgment): ECJ 19 Oct 1983, Timex v Council and Commission: ECJ 20 Mar 1985, Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4143) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 1983, Nso v Commission (Rec 1985,P 3801) (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1985, Allied Corporation and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1005) (Sv84-519 Fi84-519) (Judgment): ECJ 21 Feb 1984, Brautigam v Council (Rec 1985,P 2401) (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1985, Ferriere San Carlo v Commission: ECJ 30 Nov 1983, Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 1983, K v Germany and Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3637) (Order): ECJ 21 Oct 1982, Spijker v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2559) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1983, Johanning v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2253) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Jul 1983, Ford Ag v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2849) (Order): ECJ 6 Sep 1982, Ford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1129) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Feb 1984, Verzyck v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1991) (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jun 1983. Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly Case Brief - Rule of Law: While mutual mistake can serve to void a contract, the determination of rescission must be ... Boise Junior College District v. Mattefs Construction Co92 Idaho 757, 450 P.2d 604 (1969) ... Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc95 B.R.