May 5‚ 2011 Majority Opinion Case: Morse V Frederick After reviewing the case of Morse v Frederick‚ on a vote of 4-0‚ the court concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. On January 24‚ 2002‚ Principal Deborah Morse of Juneau-Douglass High School created a school-sanctioned event. This event allowed students to participate in the Olympic Torch Relay. The torch was on its way to Salt
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Expert: dkennedy replied 2 years ago. INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: XXXXX Attorney FROM: Paralegal DATE: June 24‚ 2012 RE: Sherman Case The potential clients are Rob Sherman and his wife‚ Bunny Sherman. They have a 15 year old son‚ Rob‚ Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Sherman’s goal is to file suit against the Church of the Divine Light‚ which is in practice similar to the Church of Scientology‚ but is in actuality independent of any organized church. The couple alleges that they have suffered damages by the Church of
Premium Law Lawyer Tort
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
Arizona v Johnson (2009) 129 S.Ct. 781 Date of Judgment: January 26‚ 2009 INTRODUCTION In 2002‚ Lemon Montrea Johnson was the passenger in the backseat of a car stopped for a traffic violation. Johnson was charged with; inter alia‚ possession of drugs and possession of a weapon by a felon. These items were discovered during a protective pat-down search of Johnson. Johnson was convicted by the trial court. Johnson argued that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court was
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
9th Amendment Certain rights‚ shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Court Case Significance Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and her colleague were convicted for giving a married couple tips on how to prevent contraception. In a 7-2 decision it was decided that the constitution from the the bill of rights 1‚3‚4‚ and 9th amendments together create a right for marital privacy
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
the agency relationship with Hilendorf (“Hilendorf‚” n.d.). An agency relationship can be terminated by an act of both parties‚ an unusual change of circumstances‚ impossibility of performance‚ and operation of law (Cheeseman‚ 2013‚ p. 393). In the case of Hilgendorf v. Hague‚ the contract was not terminated by an act of both parties‚ because Hilgendorf (agent) did not acquiesce to Hague’s (principal) attempt to terminate the relationship‚ the stated time of the contract had not passed‚ and due to
Premium Contract Law Contract law
Stroop Copyright Law 23 January 2017 HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES‚ (1985) Title and Citation: United States Supreme Court HARPER & ROW v. NATION ENTERPRISES‚ (1985) No. 83-1632 Argued: November 6‚ 1984 Decided: May 20‚ 1985 Facts of the Case: Harper and Row Publishers‚ Inc. (Harper) (Plaintiff) obtained the rights to publish President Ford’s memoirs‚ A Time to Heal‚ in a Time Magazine article. However‚ the Nation Magazine produced an unpublished article in their magazine‚ with approximately
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
PRO (yes) CON (no) The American Civil Liberties Union stated in its 1996 amicus brief in Vacco v. Quill that: "The right of a competent‚ terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court’s decisions relating to marriage‚ family relationships‚ procreation‚ contraception
Premium Death United States Law
I do not disagree nor agree with the court’s decision on the Boy Scouts of America vs Dale case‚ I am on the fence of this case for two reasons. I believe that expelling him from his position as assistant troop leader deprives him of his equal rights and is also considered discrimination based on his sexual orientation. I believe Dales homosexuality isn’t disabling anyone from carrying out their duties nor is he pushing his beliefs on or influencing the children in anyway to engage in relations with
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
when they believe material is unsuitable for younger students‚ or for reasons it could possibly disrupt the educational curriculum. If students are allowed "freedom of speech" other students could be slandered indirectly such as what occured in this case or fights may ensue due to disagreements. Yes‚ we as Americans have rights to speak our minds freely‚ but most students are minors and are under the supervision of the school. The school has the right to control what is allowed within its walls and
Premium Education First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States