Week 2 Case Summary For reference file # 8402 date issued January 17‚ 2013 Indexed as MacDonald v. Najafi and another (No.2) 2013 BCHRT 13 Facts The case I picked was heard on June 18 to19‚ 2012 in front of Murray Geiger Adams who is a member of the tribunal. The claimant is Ms. Macdonald‚ who is a university grad that moved to Vancouver from Calgary. The respondents are Mr. Najafi and his company Sign-A-Rama based in Vancouver. Mr. Najafi’s has adult children and is in his 60’s lived
Premium Discrimination Vancouver
Cepparulo‚ Officers working the street and applying the principles of Graham v. Connor every day may or may not know they are doing it. A generation of officers has been trained in the case’s practical meaning and has spent decades applying it to every use-of-force decision. So it has become part of law enforcement DNA‚ often unnoticed as it works in the background to determine our actions. But now the events in Ferguson give us a rare opportunity to put the application of the Graham standards in
Premium Police Constable Police officer
The case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier is a very interesting case because it requires the courts to balance two very important values of American society‚ freedom of speech and education. Many Americans have made countless sacrifices to ensure that we can enjoy both freedom of speech and one of the best education systems in the world. Due to the fact that these values are so important to the American people‚ it is no surprise that the decision had to be ultimately made by the Supreme Court of the United
Premium Education High school School
In the case of Snyder V. Phelps‚ in which the Westboro Baptist Church has been for many years picketing military funerals‚ rights protect the church’s freedom of speech‚ and the freedom of assembly. Although the Supreme Court is basing the decision off of the first amendment right of freedom of speech‚ not only can this case be based on freedom of speech but also the citizens right of assembly. The church believes that American soldier’s deaths should be blamed on the fact that the United States
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Business Law Kikuchi‚ Nikka Lei N. October 14‚ 2014 Cuadra v. Monfort Case Digest Statement of the facts: I. Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were classmates in Grade Six at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9‚ 1962 their teacher assigned them‚ together with three other classmates‚ to weed the grass in the school premises. While thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband‚ an ornamental object commonly worn by young girls
Free Logic Parent Mother
In the case of Smith v. United States‚ the plaintiff‚ John Angus Smith‚ was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking‚ which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1)‚ the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence‚ and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning
Premium Firearm Crime Gun
Obergefell V. Hodges is a Supreme court case that sanctioned same-sex marriage in each of the 50 states. The case occurred when a man named James Obergefell sued his home state Ohio to tell the general population of Ohio how the forbidding of gay marriage wasn’t right and an infringement of his rights as a citizen. Certain rights are counted in the Constitution. Different rights are not identified in the Constitution but rather are seemingly suggested inside its dialect. Most rights ascending by
Premium
Charter Case Analysis: Vriend v. Alberta 1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual. 2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA. 3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated
Premium
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposing snail in the ginger beer and claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and severe shock upon the sight of the snail. She sought to recover damages from Stevenson‚ claiming that the presence of snail was due to his negligence. Could Mrs. Donoghue bring an action in negligence against Stevenson? Stevenson argued that as they were not in a contractual relationship‚ hence there was no special relationship and therefore he
Premium Contract Contract Tort
In Morrison v. Olsen‚ the issue of the Independent Counsel Provision in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was challenged and the court decided that it was not unconstitutional because it did not violate the separation of powers by taking power from the Executive and giving more to the Judicial or Legislative branches. Alexia Morrison had been appointed as the independent counsel to investigate Morrison to see if he had violated federal law; he sued her arguing that the Independent Counsel had
Premium