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
Case Brief GATOR.COM CORP. V. L.L. BEAN‚ INC. 341 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2003) (1) Facts: March 2001‚ L.L. Bean’s corporate counsel mailed Gator a cease and desist letter requesting that Gator stop its pop-up windows from appearing when customers visited their website. Gator refused to change its practices‚ and instead filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California seeking a declaratory judgment. L.L. Bean filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. In November
Premium Jury Court Appeal
The question before the Supreme Court concerning the Young v. UPS. Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require an employer to provide the same work accommodations to an employee with pregnancy-related work limitations as to employees with similar‚ but non-pregnancy related‚ work limitation? (http://www.oyez.org/cases) Samuel Bagenstos on behalf of the petitioner argued that UPS violated the second clause of the PDA. To his understanding the second clause means an employee seeking accommodation
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Human rights
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992‚ when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked‚ he applied for the position to be directly
Premium Appeal Standard Oil Chevron Corporation
The Brown v. Board of Education case is landmark in the history of the United States society and the judiciary system (Hartung). It drastically affected the education systems‚ the civil rights movements‚ and is known as one of the first cases to acknowledge social science results. The Brown v. Board of Education case took place over sixty years ago‚ and its affects continue to influence many aspects of today’s society‚ and more specifically today’s education systems. Although the Brown case had many
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
What is the difference between lawful trickery and unlawful coercion according to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Perkins? The case in brief involved a murder investigation (Stephenson murder) in November 1984‚ located in East St. Louis‚ Illinois. The investigation went unsolved until 1986‚ when an inmate at the Graham Correctional Facility‚ told officials he had learn information related to the homicide from a fellow inmate‚ Lloyd Perkins. The inmate detailed certain information
Premium Police Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
another point which the authors addressed in the article. In Turp v. Canada (2012)‚ the respondent (Canada) was brought up on charges for opting out of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA) (2012). The act was put in place as a measure to ensure Canada meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However the Canadian government withdrew from the KPIA‚ and was subsequently brought to federal court. The court dismissed the case without cost‚ as they found the government’s reasoning for opting
Premium Management Globalization Strategic management
Park Min-jung (20080534) Fact : On June 9‚ 1974‚ Jerome Bourque(Plaintiff) was playing second base on a softball game. Duplechin(Defendant)‚ a member of the opposing team had hit the ball and advanced to first base. After his teammate hit the ball‚ to avoid double play Duplechin ran at full speed into Bourque. As Duplechin ran into Bourque‚ he brought his left arm up under Bourque’s chin. Plaintiff Bourque filed this suit to recover damages for personal injuries received in the collision.
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
testimony of his co-defendant‚ John Bryant‚ Jr.‚ to be considered against him; (5) that the Court erred in permitting the jury to separate overnight on the last day of the trial; and (6) that there were certain erroneous instructions. (Law Justia: State v. Mouzon (1957)‚ n.d.) Holding
Premium Crime Murder Capital punishment