Consti 1 Tañada v Tuvera‚ 136 SCRA 27 (1985) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-63915 April 24‚ 1985 LORENZO M. TAÑADA‚ ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO‚ and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD‚ INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM‚ INC. [MABINI]‚ petitioners‚ vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA‚ in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President‚ HON. JOAQUIN VENUS‚ in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ‚ MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ‚ in his capacity as Director‚ Malacañang
Premium Law
MORSE v. FREDERICK Personally as a Supreme Court judge and after taking a fairly through look at the cases‚ I’d have to rule in favor of Frederick. While the banner that Mr. Frederick had up during the school event does make a reference to drugs‚ the message is pretty vague as even I can’t really interpret the true absolute definition of the banner. Judge Steven even states “Justice John Paul Stevens took the position that the school ’s interest in protecting students from speech that can be
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
infliction of the death penalty is constitutionally impermissible in all circumstances under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their case is a strong one. But I find it unnecessary to reach the ultimate question they would decide. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority‚ 297 U.S. 288‚ 347 (Brandeis‚ J.‚ concurring). The opinions of other Justices today have set out in admirable and thorough detail the origins and judicial history of the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against the infliction
Free Capital punishment Prison Crime
1. Case Name‚ Citation and Court Hampton v. Federal Express Corporation‚ 917 F.2d 1119 (8th Cir. 1990) 2. Key Facts a. Carl Gerome Hampton was a thirteen year old boy that was diagnosed with cancer and needed a blood transplant. b. Carl was a patient at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Omaha‚ Nebraska. This hospital sent five samples of Carl’s blood to the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Iowa City so they could find a match between five other people for a bone marrow transplant. c. FedEx
Free Common law Law United States
TIO V ABAYATA FACTS: This is an action for annulment of mortgage‚ mortgage sale‚ a subsequent sale and certificates of title‚ filed by the successors-in-interest of Celedonio Abayata. It was respondents’ contention that they are the absolute owners of the property in dispute‚ a 1‚868-square meter parcel of land located in Lapu-Lapu City‚ Cebu‚ by virtue of a final Decision dated November 26‚ 1986‚ rendered by the RTC of Lapu-lapu City. Respondents alleged that through machinations‚ defendant Benjamin Lasola (Lasola)
Premium Real estate Ownership Mortgage loan
King v Cogdon Minerva Rodriguez Criminal Law 1310 22 April 2013 Professor Holden Case: King v Cogdon King v Cogdon‚ was an Australian case heard in 1950. Ms. Cogdon who suffers from minor neurotic conditions is believed to be her daughter’s murderer. She had on an occasion dreamt spiders were attacking her daughter (Pat). That night Ms. Cogdon had slept walked into her room and began to violently brush the spiders off her daughter’s
Premium Psychosis Psychiatry Sleep
Derek Brown Professor Janet Smith Employment Law BA370 25 July 2011 REEVES V. C.H. ROBIONSON WORLDWIDE The legal issue in this case was whether Reeves was subjected to harassment based on her sex and whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to C.H. Robinson‚ holding that “sex specific” language satisfies the “based on sex” element even when the language does not target the plaintiff. The
Premium Discrimination Employment
GONZALES v. OREGON Oral Argument: 05 -’06 Term Subject: Physician-assisted suicide‚ Ashcroft directive‚ Controlled Substances Act‚ Oregon Death with Dignity Act A group of Oregon residents‚ including a doctor‚ a pharmacist‚ and several terminally ill patients‚ sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule‚ referred to as the "Ashcroft Directive‚" declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Congress
Legal Brief Case: Right to Confront: Coy V Iowa. Date: August 2‚1985. Principals:(main characters) *Kathy Brown (13) *Linda Thompson (friend) (13) *girls names were changed to protect identities. -intruder believed to be John Avery Coy‚ (34). Facts of the Case: Kathy Brown invited her friend Linda to come and sleep over. Kathy made a makeshift tent out in her backyard. Girls fell asleep between 10:30 and 11:00 pm. In the middle of the night Kathy saw a hand pull back one of the blankets
Free Supreme Court of the United States Jury United States Constitution
Korematsu v. United States Japanese Internment‚ Equal Protection (1944) When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7‚ 1941‚ the American military became concerned about the security of the United States‚ particularly along the West Coast. At the time‚ about 112‚000 people of Japanese descent lived on the West Coast; about 70‚000 of these were American citizens. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This authorized the Secretary of War or any designated
Premium Japanese American internment President of the United States United States