all the bananas became
some kind of mango the way
chicken eggs became some kind
of caviar or something
and when the pumpkin
seeds were planted they
would not take root
and when the wheat fields
were reaped they
in fact produced no
yield even worse than
dividend aristocrats
that suddenly produce
no yield
so horrible
so very bad
and so very rotten
and it was
not a very good thing
it was a very
bad
thing
so i decided to put forward
a new shareholder proxy
item after holding
twenty-five g-units
of the requisite value of shares
and
i wrote deep in the money covered
calls so it really it felt like it
was more like
twelve and a half g-units and
someone else had the other
twelve and a half g-units in
intrinsic value
so
well and yeah I held it for twelve
full months and basically the proposal
i put forward was something better
than anything anyone could have
imagined
i'm no longer in really so
spectacular a mood and
really not enjoying
the day
So. These paragraphs are actually
going to appear in no particular order.
Cooking is one of those things I really don't like doing. I made rice, and. half of it is something like eating rocks, and the other half seems like cream of wheat. I went out to get pods for my vape pen, and the vape shop wasn't open. so I figured I would get groceries instead. I saw a sign that said Aldi's, and I know that place is cheap, so I went there, toward the sign, rather than Walmart, but Aldi's wasn't open. meaning, it isn't fully constructed yet. the store is still being built. the problem is that back-tracking back to Wal-Mart would take as long as driving all the way home. the road medians are kind of a headache in this area.
anyway. thank god for president's day. I don't. i need an extra day this weekend.
Thank god for president's day. For this post. Newer paragraphs are at the top of the post, rather than at the bottom. usually a new paragraph is added below all existing or previously existing paragraphs. in this case, new paragraphs appear above older paragraphs.
I don't know why I'm still working on this. It thinik I'm just. Finally going to get it done today. 2 pages or even three pages doesn't really translate into 5 minutes very easily. I'm starting to get frustrated with this.
Another. 20 or so outtakes trying to do my case brief video. it still seems kind of rehearsed, and unnatural.
and it's still not 5 minutes. I think I did a read through and it was not five minutes, like 3 and a half.
the case that I'm briefing is
Wulf v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Incorporated
2019
The parties to case are
The estate of roland wulf
and
Bravo Brio restaurant Group, Incorporated
in this case
The estate of roland wulf is appealing a
trial court summary judgement decision
in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
the facts of the original case are that
according to wulf
he was on his way to the restroom
when someone bumped into him,
he ended up falling and breaking his hip
wulf said that he did not see who bumped into him
nor did anyone in his party witness the incident
but he states that when he got up
a woman in a bravo uniform
apologized for bumping into him.
the estate of roland wulf was established
before the
conclusion of the trial court case
and resumed the case in his stead
the issues in this case are
the doctrine of respondeat superior, and
whether or not an employee
needs to be specifically identified
in order for an employer to be held liable for
the negligent behavior of an employee
the open and obvious doctrine, and
how static hazards are distinct from dynamic
hazards
and whether or not it was appropriate for the trial court
to grant a summary judgement in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
The appellate court ruled
that an employee does not need to be
specifically identified
to establish liability under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
that the open and obvious doctrine applies strictly to static hazards
and
that the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of
bravo brio was not appropriate
in the appellate court's opinion, powell writes that
it is
not necessary for a plaintiff to name or to specifically identify an
employee for liability to be established under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
the appellate court points out that in the cases cited by
bravo brio, the employees
happen
to be identified,
but the cases
cited did not establish that negligent employees
must be
identified
and the appellate court also found no compelling reason to establish
such a requirement
the appellate court also ruled that
the open and obvious doctrine only applies to static hazards
and that a
separate duty exists related to dynamic hazards,
and that duty: is a duty not to conduct
and expose invitees to negligent activities.
with respect to the trial court's decision to grant a summary judgement
in favor of bravo brio,
the appellate court
determined that it was not appropriate for the summary judgement to be granted.
a summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no issue of material fact,
but the trial court largely
excluded many pieces of material evidence introduced by the plaintiff,
and the appellate court also determined
that the evidence entered was not
viewed in a light favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, the plaintiff.
the appellate court concludes the case
by having the trial court's decision reversed and remanded.
considering that there is no subsequent case history after the appellate court's 2019 decision,
the professor suggested that the case was probably settled.
the case that I'm briefing is
Wulf v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Incorporated
2019
The parties to case are
The estate of roland wulf
and
Bravo Brio restaurant Group, Incorporated
in this case
The estate of roland wulf is appealing a
trial court summary judgement decision
in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
the facts of the original case are that
roland wulf suffered an injury while dining
at cucina italiana
in west chester ohio
according to wulf
he was on his way to the restroom
when someone bumped into him,
he ended up falling and breaking his hip
wulf said that he did not see who bumped into him
nor did he see the incident
but he states that when he got up
a woman in a bravo uniform
apologized for bumping into him.
the estate of roland wulf was established
before the
conclusion of the trial court case
and resumes the case in his stead
the issues in this case are
the doctrine of respondeat superior, and
whether or not an employee
needs to be specifically identified
in order for an employer to be held liable for
the negligent behavior of an employee
the open and obvious doctrine, and
how static hazards are distinct from dynamic
hazards
and whether or not it was appropriate for the trial court
to grant a summary judgement in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
The appellate court ruled
that an employee does not need to be
specifically identified
to establish liability under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
that the open and obvious doctrine applies strictly to static hazards
and that the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of
bravo brio was not appropriate
in the appellate court's opinion, powell writes that
it is
not necessary for a plaintiff to name or to specifically identify an
employee for liability to be established under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
the appellate court points out that in the cases cited by
bravo brio, the employees
happen
to be identified,
but the cases
cited did not establish that negligent employees
must be
identified
and the appellate court also found no compelling reason to establish
such a requirement
the appellate court also ruled that
the open and obvious doctrine only applies to static hazards
and that a
separate duty exists related to dynamic hazards,
and that duty: is a duty not to conduct
and expose invitees to negligent activities.
with respect to the trial court's decision to grant a summary judgement
in favor of bravo brio, the appellate court
determined that it was not appropriate for the summary judgement to be granted.
a summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no issue of material fact,
but the trial court largely
excluded many pieces of material evidence introduced by the plaintiff,
and the appellate court also determined
that the evidence entered was not
viewed in a light favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, the plaintiff.
the appellate court concludes the case
by having the trial court's decision reversed and remanded.
considering that there is no subsequent case history after the appellate court's 2019 decision,
the professor suggested that the case was probably settled.
the case that I'm briefing is
Wulf v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Incorporated
2019
The parties to case are
The estate of roland wulf
and
Bravo Brio restaurant Group, Incorporated
in this case
The estate of roland wulf is appealing a
trial court summary judgement decision
in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
the facts of the original case are that
roland wulf suffered an injury while dining
at cucina italiana
in west chester ohio
according to wulf
he was on his way to the restroom
when someone bumped into him,
he ended up falling and breaking his hip
wulf said that he did not see who bumped into him
nor did he see the incident
but he states that when he got up
a woman in a bravo uniform
apologized for bumping into him.
the estate of roland wulf was established
before the
conclusion of the trial court case
and resumes the case in his stead
the issues in this case are
the doctrine of respondeat superior, and
whether or not an employee
needs to be specifically identified
in order for an employer to be held liable for
the negligent behavior of an employee
the open and obvious doctrine, and
how static hazards are distinct from dynamic
hazards
and whether or not it was appropriate for the trial court
to grant a summary judgement in favor of bravo brio restaurant group
The appellate court ruled
that an employee does not need to be
specifically identified
to establish liability under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
that the open and obvious doctrine applies strictly to static hazards
and
that the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of
bravo brio was not appropriate
in the appellate court's opinion, powell writes that
it is
not necessary for a plaintiff to name or to specifically identify an
employee for liability to be established under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
the appellate court points out that in the cases cited by
bravo brio, the employees
happen
to be identified,
but the cases
cited did not establish that negligent employees
must be
identified
and the appellate court also found no compelling reason to establish
such a requirement
the appellate court also ruled that
the open and obvious doctrine only applies to static hazards
and that a
separate duty exists related to dynamic hazards,
and that duty: is a duty not to conduct
and expose invitees to negligent activities.
with respect to the trial court's decision to grant a summary judgement
in favor of bravo brio, the appellate court
determined that it was not appropriate for the summary judgement to be granted.
a summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no issue of material fact,
but the trial court largely
excluded many pieces of material evidence introduced by the plaintiff,
and the appellate court also determined
that the evidence entered was not
viewed in a light favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, the plaintiff.
the appellate court concludes the case
by having the trial court's decision reversed and remanded.
considering that there is no subsequent case history after the appellate court's 2019 decision,
the professor suggested that the case was probably settled.
No comments:
Post a Comment