Sentences with phrase «defendant knew the property»

Not exact matches

Page said a charge of discharging a firearm on educational property was dismissed because it was not clear that either defendant knew the woods where they shot the dog were within the property boundaries of the school.

From the outset the defendant must have known that, at best, it was handling property to which it had no title.

The plaintiff alleged that this constituted a latent defect in the property which the defendants knew about and concealed from the plaintiff.

I happen to know of a case where a criminal charge of trespassing was dismissed because an employee of the company on whose property the defendant was said to have trespassed watched him for some time without ever telling him to leave.

The defendant argued that the circuit had been used for motor racing for a number of years before the claimants had bought their properties and that they were not entitled to complain about a feature of the neighbourhood which they knew about, or should have known about, when they moved in.

Essentially, under Florida negligent security law, a crime victim can obtain money damages from the defendant if he or she can provide sufficient evidence that there was (1) a dangerous condition on the property and (2) the defendant knew — or reasonably should have known about it but (3) he or she did not take reasonable steps to make the place safe or at least minimize the danger and (4) as a result, the plaintiff was hurt.

For the assumptions to apply, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that the defendant knew that the transfer of the property to him had been part of a fraudulent scheme.

A defendant will not have committed the offence of theft, and, therefore, can not have committed the offence of robbery even though he used force to acquire the property and knew he was not permitted to use such force to acquire the property, if he believed that he had a right to appropriate the property.

So, all we know from the Ramirez opinion is that a defendant with an long criminal history stole $ 1000 of personal property and received the statutory maximum sentence after accepting responsibility.

The court also concluded that a domain name could be an instrument of fraud, as the defendants registered the claimants» well - known domain names, with the purpose of appropriating the claimants» property and their goodwill, with an intention of threatening dishonest use by them or another.

See Brar v. Mutti (1994 BCSC), where the defendant knew of and failed to mention restrictive covenants, which affected the buyer's planned use of the property.