Michelle Vandeprool March 10‚ 2013 SPD 616 IEP Case Study Review Hurry v. Jones Having reviewed the case Hurry V. Jones 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984)‚ at first reading of the case and with my novice awareness of the law I am seriously concerned as to why this ever went to court. IDEA and the constitution of the United States guarantee that students will receive a free public education no matter what their handicaps. The District should have provided some method by which
Premium Education Lawsuit Dispute resolution
Carter. Carter and Johns‚ the defendants in this case‚ were convicted at the state level of conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime in the first degree. The defendants were temporary guests in Thompsons home. An officer witnessed the three individuals through a gap in a drawn window blind engaged in illegal activity which appeared to be the bagging of cocaine. The defendants appealed their case‚ stating that their Fourth Amendment right was violated due to an illegal
Premium Police The Police Crime
Case: Bell v. Starbucks U.S. Brands Corp.‚ 389 F.Supp.2d 766 (2005)‚ United States District Court Facts: Rex Bell‚ the owner of a small‚ privately owned music venue‚ filed a complaint against Starbuck’s U.S. Brands Corp in response to receiving “cease and desist” letters after he applied for registration‚ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office‚ of the “Starbock Beer” trademark. Bell was seeking a declaratory judgement that the use of the “Star Bock Beer” logo and name‚ in connection with
Premium Law Contract Supreme Court of the United States
Requirement 1: The definition of precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent or similar circumstances. Requirement 2: Case 1: Mahe v. Alberta Summary: The Mahe v. Alberta case is on the concept of language rights. The ruling is notable‚ as the court established that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees minority language education rights to French-speaking communities outside Quebec. The argument
Premium Law Common law Judge
March 26‚ 1812‚ by combining Elbridge Gerry’s last name and the word salamander. Gerrymandering is currently legal as there aren’t any laws that prohibit its use. However‚ some courts have ruled some gerrymandering cases as unconstitutional. It is believed that Gill v. Whitford case could bring about new regulations to the Gerrymandering.
Premium
Title and Citation: County of Riverside v McGlaughlin‚ 500 U.S. 44 (1991) Type of Action: This Criminal case in which the Maclaughlin claimed that his Fourth Amendment was violated due to the 48 hours arraignment for Probable cause. Facts of Case: Offender MacLaughlin started a legal claim‚ affirming that the County’s routine of consolidating arraignment with a determination of reasonable justification for individuals subject to warrantless arrest was not adequately provoke under the Fourth Amendment
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case‚ the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial‚ he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly
Premium
Section 1 Essay U.S. v. Windsor‚ 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)‚ is a case about a same-sex couple that was married in 2007 in Ontario‚ Canada because at that time same-sex marriage was not legal in New York. The same-sex couple‚ Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer resided in New York. Two years after the couple was married‚ Spyer died‚ and left all of her estate to her wife‚ Windsor. When Windsor went to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses‚ she was denied because of the federal Defense
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Same-sex marriage United States Constitution
v. Wade; then defend or criticize it. There are many different choices of lifestyle and decisions that people make that everyone does not agree with. There are always controversies when it comes to the LGBT community‚ gun laws‚ and abortion. In the case Roe v. Wade‚ they were questioning whether the constitution contained parts that granted women the rights to get an abortion that also nullified the Texas prohibition. Some people may feel that abortions should be legal for all women to have‚ but I
Premium Abortion Roe v. Wade Pregnancy
Legal Memorandum on Rogers v. Wycoff case From: Jamshid AKHMEDOV To: Therese KEELAGHAN Date: November 5‚ 2012 1) Relevant facts: Defendant: Edward Wycoff‚ 40 Defense attorney: Defendant acts as his own attorney Victims: Julie Rogers‚ 47 and Paul Rogers‚ 47 Plaintiff attorney: Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson Witness (also a Victim): Victims’ son Eric Rogers‚ 20 Witness’ attorney: Tedd W. Cassman Judge: Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John W
Premium United States Jury Civil procedure