Student Name: Angela M. Williams Class: Law 103/Legal Research – Mon./Wed. Date Due: 02/23/09 Date Submitted: same Project: Case Brief I Project Palmore v. Sidoti Possible Points: 25 Points Received: Palmore v. Sidoti‚ 466 U.S. 429‚ 104 S. Ct. 1879‚ 80 L. Ed. 2d 421 (1984) Facts: 1) Petitioner Linda Sidoti-Palmore and respondent Anthony J. Sidoti divorced
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
computers. Founded forty-one years ago and becoming one of the biggest electronic companies on the planet‚ Microsoft has become well established. The company has had bumps in their forty-one years of operations‚ though. The United States v. Microsoft antitrust case was initiated on May18‚1998 by the United States Department of Justice. The company was accused of becoming an monopoly‚ but moreover‚ “engaging” in derogatory practices. These vulgar practices that Microsoft was accused of where contrary
Premium Microsoft Operating system Microsoft Windows
Title VII B. Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("Fair Housing Law") - Prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling to any person on the basis of race‚ color‚ religion‚ or national origin V. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE COURTS - Any program‚ whether enacted by a government or by a private organization‚ whose goal is to overcome the results of past unequal treatment of minorities and/or women by giving members of these groups preferential treatment
Premium United States American Civil War Slavery in the United States
that the people know details about the professional and sometimes even personal lives of elected and selected officials. When the conviction in the Supreme Court’s Gideon v. Wainwright was reversed‚ news spread across the country and those who were convicted without given the right to legal counsel could petition to have their cases retried as well. The draw back to the information age is the accuracy and usefulness of the information that
Premium Mass media United States United States Constitution
MICHAEL E. KLEIBER v HONDA OF AMERICA MFG.‚ INC.‚ Plaintiff-Appellant‚ Defendant-Appellee. FRL 302 – Professor Young Group Project INTRODUCTION This appellate case is about a man‚ Michael Kleiber who suffered a debilitating head injury that ultimately lead to his job termination as a factory worker for Honda. Honda claimed that they were unable to accommodate Kleiber’s disability on the basis that Kleiber was not able to perform the job tasks for any alternate job positions. Honda
Premium Fine motor skill Hand Motor control
Part 2 - Choose ONE of the options [pic] Part 1 - Choose one part of the assigned textbook question to answer An important concept this week is jurisdiction. As the text explains‚ a court must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. Subject matter jurisdiction is rather straight forward - the court must have jurisdic tion to hear the particular type of dispute (see my video for further explanation of this concept). Now look at Question 2 (p. 71) and pick either b‚ c‚ or d
Premium Law Jurisdiction Appeal
1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court. Lee V. Weisman 120 L.EDd. 2d 467 (1992) United States Supreme Court 2. Summary
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
State v. Evans‚ 671 N.W. 2d 720 (Iowa‚ 2003) In the late 1990’s Rebecca Arnold was attending Scott County Community College for nursing. While attending college Arnold encountered Hubert Evans‚ a published photographer with a foot fetish. It was during this random interaction that Evans asked Arnold to photograph her feet‚ Arnold declined. Evans had even told Arnold that he helped other women‚ whose pictures he had taken become “big models”. At some point in 1998‚ Evans obtained Arnold’s telephone
Premium Abuse Iowa Harassment
The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright‚ 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They
Premium Crime Police Law
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal