United States v. Jones‚ United States Supreme Court (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945 Facts of the Case Respondent Jones was a subject of a Government investigation in part of a much larger drug trafficking conspiracy. As part of the investigation‚ FBI agents had obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by Jones – a Jeep registered to Jone’s wife. The court order was issued in the District of Columbia and was set to expire 10 days after it was signed by the judge. On Day
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The film V for Vendetta directed by James McTeigue‚ is a story about shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" who along with his companion Evey Hammond‚ completes V’s vendetta of blowing up parliament and removing the governments’ control. In the film an idea that was worth learning about was that ideas are very powerful and live beyond the death of individuals. This is shown throughout the film by the use of costume‚ dialogue and symbolism. Costume is illustrated in V for vendetta by the
Premium V for Vendetta
applies to any weakness or predisposition of the plaintiff to a particular injury or illness regardless of the defendant’s knowledge. An illustration of this rule can be found in the following case which are; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962) and Robinson v Post office (1974) 1 WLR 1176. The case of Smith v Leech Brain is about a galvanizer who is the plaintiff’s husband and work at the defendant’s company. His job is to lift articles into a tank of a molten metal via a crane. The plaintiff’s husband
Premium Law Tort Tort law
Lana Phan Case: Dred Scott v. Sandford Facts: This lawsuit involves Dred Scott‚ an African American slave and his owner due to the passing of his previous owner Dr. Emerson‚ John F. A. Sanford. John F.A Sanford is the brother to the wife of Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis on April 6‚ 1846 . Dred Scott’s legal suit is for assault and false imprisonment: “A slave could be punished and kept as property‚ but a free person could not
Premium Slavery in the United States American Civil War Slavery
People v. Rangel (2012) : Case Brief Issue: When a search warrant is issued on the grounds of proving someone to be a part of gang activity‚ is it logical to be able to search their personal items such as a phone? Facts: San Mateo police believed that supposed gang member Eric Rangel was responsible for the felony assault that took place in a local park and also that it was a gang-related crime. As a result police obtained a search warrant of Rangel’s home on the grounds of proving “gang indicia”
Premium Crime Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law
It is unquestionable that Scarlett is the primary victim of the case‚ as Henry had expressed his intention of causing harm to her by threatening her with violence for a few months. In other words‚ it would be fair to say that Henry’s action was reasonably foreseeable as it was obvious that any sort of torment over an extended period of time would have negative psychological impact on a person. Although Scarlett did not suffer any physical injury‚ the imminent threats she perceived from Henry retriggered
Premium English-language films Jury Trial
Moon v Whitehead (2015)‚ is a case dealing with the tort of trespass to person: battery. The appellant‚ Moon‚ appealed the decision of the trial court on the basis of consent. Moon claimed he received adequate consent from the respondent‚ Whitehead‚ while the two were in Sydney attending a work conference. He and the respondent shared an apartment with separate bedrooms for the period of the conference. The respondent pleaded that on 13 August 2007 the appellant came into her bedroom uninvited and
Premium Law Appeal Jury
Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse (1987) case. In this particular case‚ a female employee of a management firm filed a claim of sex discrimination against her employer. The plaintiff alleged that she was denied partnership with the company for acting “too masculine.” The employer reportedly informed the plaintiff that she may receive reconsideration the following year and she should focus on “walking‚ talking‚ and dressing more feminine” to progress her chances of becoming a partner (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse
Premium Gender Discrimination Employment
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller‚ operator
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Alternative Dispute Resolution The case selected is a construction defect case‚ Haynes v. Adair Homes‚ Inc. The case was lastly filed in the Court of Appeals of The State of Oregon. Hynes v. Adair Homes was initially filed in the Clackamas County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs Paul and Renee Haynes contracted with the defendant Adair Homes‚ Inc. for the construction of their home. After completion of the house‚ they discovered extensive water in the underfloor crawlspace. Ponding water in the crawlspace
Premium Appeal United States Law