Case Paper McFall v. Shimp McFall v. Shimp: Right to Bodily Security In 1978 a case was brought to civil court to challenge a well-established American idea of a person’s absolute right to bodily security. The Plaintiff‚ McFall‚ suffered from a rare bone marrow disease and was in need of a bone marrow transplant. The Defendant‚ Shimp‚ was a suitable potential donor who refused to undergo the procedure needed to harvest the bone marrow. When Shimp refused‚ McFall sought an
Premium Law Appeal Rights
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
In 1960 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Tuskegee city officials redrew the cities boundaries unconstitutionally so that the white candidates in the cities political race could win and the blacks’ votes would not count. This case laid the framework for the passage of the 1965 voters rights act which outlawed discrimination in voting. The case was named after a Tuskegee university professor Charlie A. Gomillion who was the plaintiff and the defendant was the mayor of Tuskegee Phillip M. Lightfoot
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States American Civil War
My experience in New Mexico When I moved here in Albuquerque New Mexico is new place for me‚ since I don’t know this place nor heard of it anywhere. I only know that my family lived in the America since I never ask them which part of America they lived. I am surprised to see the Albuquerque because I never thought that it looked like a desert. I was having a hard to adjust when I moved here I got homesick‚ even though it’s only been a week since we moved. I don’t know anyone in here except for
Premium High school College School
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court
penis was never found. Issue: Barry Jewell was convicted of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class A felony. Also‚ Battery resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class C felony. Rule: The court used the case‚ Ellyson V. State‚ 603 N.E.2d 1369‚ 1373 (Ind. Ct.App.1992) In that case‚ Ellyson was charged with burglary because he broke into the house where him and his estranged wife lived with the intent to rape her. He was still charged with burglary even though he had
Premium Felony Marriage Crimes
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment-at-will_doctrine This refers to the presumption that employment is for an indefinite period of time and may be terminated either by employer or employee. This is the historical approach that courts have taken in interpreting employment relationships. Given the unequal bargaining power between employees and employers‚ critics of this doctrine have noted its overly harsh results and have looked to unions‚ acting as certified representatives of employees‚
Premium Employment
Employment at Will When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees‚ ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially‚ if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason‚ critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper‚ “Employment at Will and Due Process”‚ discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW‚ and shows Werhane’s supportive view
Premium Employment
Employment-at-will (EAW) is a principle that allows employees and employers to terminate the employment relationship with any reason or no reason in cases where no matters of union‚ legal statute‚ public policy or contract reign.1 Since its inception‚ EAW as a principle has allowed employers to terminations without remedy‚ even in cases against public policy.2 Modern developments to this principle have caused employers to work within common law to combat potential litigation by removing the representation
Premium Employment