In the state of Ohio, the courts have taken a pro-business approach, at least regarding the nursing home industry, as is evidenced, by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case, the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home, an Ohio nursing home, by a former resident, Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home, she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence by the nursing home staff. Oakridge entered a motion seeking a stay of the court proceedings because, Hayes had signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any malpractice claims she might assert against Oakridge would be resolved…
MILLERSBURG — A Wooster man has denied criminal charges he was in possession of methamphetamine when he was pulled over for a traffic stop in January.…
Mapp vs. ohio: The surrounding of the case was the police came in her house try to find a bomb suspect they found the bomb suspect but they also found pornograph pics of her self so she was arrested that day. The supreme court's decision was that when a police officer is searching you or your house they have to specify what they are looking for. The courts decision maid a big change because the cops if they come in your house looking for a gun but they find a knife they cant arrest you for it because they have to specify what they are looking for.…
A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act, mens rea is a guilty mind, and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye, he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum sentence of up to four years when arrested three times for driving on a revoked license. The prosecutor sent Frye's counsel a letter that offered two possible plea bargains. If he was to plea guilty the charge could be reduced to a misdemeanor…
What is the difference between lawful trickery and unlawful coercion according to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Perkins?…
In 1968 a case called Terry v. Ohio took place. This case made a big impact on the police departments of the United States by giving officers more reasons to make an arrest. A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon reasonable suspicion that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires probable cause that a suspect committed a criminal offense.…
A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes, his slurred speech, and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests, and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing, the officer took him to a nearby hospital for blood alcohol test. The officer explained to McNeely that under Missouri’s implied consent law, refusal to submit voluntarily to the blood test would lead to an immediate one-year suspension of his driver’s license and could be used against him in any future prosecution. The testing of the blood indicated that the blood alcohol level was significantly above the legal limit. McNeely had challenged the blood test evidence claiming that there should have been a search warrant before ordering a blood sample.…
complaint made by Gregory and in my opinion, though the rules and regulations of the…
The case we received was Ed Franklin, a former teacher at public and private schools in Minersville, pled guilty to state criminal charges of sexually molesting several of his former students. One of Franklin's victims was invited to appear at Franklin’s sentencing hearing in order to testify about the impact of the molestation. While the hearing was open to the press and public, the judge ordered the reporters present not to identify any of the sexual assault victims in press accounts of the sentencing. None of the reporters present at the hearing raised any objection to the judge’s order. Despite the order, a reporter for the American Press news syndicate included the victim’s name in coverage of the hearing.…
Reasoning: Justice Hughes acknowledges that there are limits to freedom of the press, however, any constitutional restraints can only be imposed in very special and extreme circumstances such as obscenity or the obstruction of the war effort. In this case the Judge ruled that there were no such vital threats at risk. The judge ruled that the most important freedom of the press in the right to operate without prior censorship.…
Since its creation in the late 18th century, the Supreme Court has made numerous decisions that impacted the course of history. The Supreme Court has a very important job, to interpret the constitution principles and make decisions based on these important standards. Had it not been for the rulings made by this court, many laws and precedents may not have been adapted. One case that had an exceptionally important impact on history was the case of Muller vs. Oregon. This case is one of the most influential decisions in Supreme Court history and its impacts are still seen even today.…
Most importantly, the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was a Supreme Court case whereby the Court upheld the ultimate states’ authority to impose compulsory vaccination laws. It articulated that an individual’s freedom should at times be subjected to the states’ police power and subordinated to the collective public welfare. The Court decision in the case elicited numerous questions regarding the state government’s power to safeguard the public's health, as well as the protection of personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. The Court also articulated that the states had the authority to protect its citizens from dangers of diseases for their own good, which necessitated the enforcement of the compulsory vacation laws (NCBI, 2005).…
In today’s society, the death penalty is still a very controversial topic on its own however, add the possibility of a Fifth Amendment violation makes it worse. For the people in the State of Kansas, it something for significant since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1994. The case of Kansas V. Cheever involves just that, the sentence of death for a man accused of killing a Kansas Sherriff. During the trial the defendant declared a voluntary intoxication defense due to the consumption of methamphetamines at the time of the killing. A mental health exam was ordered to see if Cheever’s mental capacity made him incapable of premeditation…
In the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court analyzed the meaning and extent of the Second Amendment for the first time since 1939. In narrow 5-4 decision penned by Justice that the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun was unconstitutional and thus violates the individual right granted by the Second Amendment. The Justices of the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, having nothing to do with collective right grant by the service in a state militia. The Court made clear that this right to bear arms has limits, but, as explored in detailed below, the statue of limitations of those limitation remain unclear. D.C.…
The criminal justice system realizes that inmates do have some rights, however it is also recognized that those inmates do have less rights than free citizens. Taking away some rights of the inmates is a valid punishment and by restricting these rights it helps in maintaining security in prisons. The title of the case that I chose was Wolff v. McDonnell. This case was very important because it uniformed certain rights and freedoms within correctional facilities. “Although inmates received some procedural safe-guards to protect them against the notorious abuses of disciplinary meetings, they did not receive all the due- process rights of a criminal trial” (Clemens, 2002). Nor did the Court question the right of correctional officials to revoke the good time of inmates. In this case, “Robert O. McDonnell, a prisoner, had filed a class- action suit against the state of Nebraska, claiming that its disciplinary procedures, especially those pertaining to the loss of good time were unconstitutional” (Clemens, 2002). McDonnell also complained, along with other inmates, about the limitations on their access to the law library, legal services, and visitation with the inmate legal assistant and that the regulations regarding prisoners ' mail violated the attorney-client privilege” (Keenan, 2005). This case was argued on Argued April 22, 1974 and a decision was made on decided June 26, 1974.…