Constitutional Chisme: Garratt v. Dailey
Failed to add items
Sorry, we are unable to add the item because your shopping cart is already at capacity.
Add to basket failed.
Please try again later
Add to wishlist failed.
Please try again later
Remove from wishlist failed.
Please try again later
Adding to library failed
Please try again
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
Constitutional Chisme: Garratt v. Dailey
-
Narrated by:
-
By:
Constitutional Chisme is your weekly mini-episode where your host Stephanie and co-host Harleigh break down the cases you’re most likely to see in law school.
This week, we are covering Garratt v. Dailey. The case raised important questions about intent in battery and whether a person can be liable for battery if they did not specifically intend to harm someone but knew with substantial certainty that harmful contact would occur.
Use code PASSWITHPONZ to get an additional $100 off whatever sale Kaplan Bar Prep is currently offering.
Click the link to support the podcast and keep the chisme coming! Link: https://linktr.ee/legallyponzaneli
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet