CASE United States v. Nixon‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) FACTS A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Nixon’s White House staff members and political supporters of the President for violation of federal statutes in the Watergate affair‚. The President on the other hand was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure - Rule 17 for a subpoena duces tecum‚ a court summons ordering the President
Premium Richard Nixon Watergate scandal President of the United States
ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case was a product liability lawsuit filed by Stella Liebeck‚ a 79 year old woman who was burned by a scalding hot coffee. One Sunday afternoon in 1994‚ Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s drive through in Albuquerque‚ New Mexico. As she sat alongside her grandson in a 1989 Ford Probe‚ Liebeck noticed that there were no cup holders on the passenger side. Acting quickly‚ Liebeck decided to put the coffee cup between her knees. When she removed the coffee
Premium Nutrition Obesity Blood
Abington Township v Schempp Date: Decided In June 17‚ 1963 or Feb 27‚1976 Problem: Schempp filed suit on the Abington school district for requiring students to read verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania. Outcome: Schempp argued that it was unconstitutional‚ violating religious freedom. Part of the constitution: The First amendment: exercise of free religion‚ speech‚ and press The fourteen amendment: Never should any state impede the life‚ liberty‚ or property of a person Precedent: Got
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
RENO v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION US Supreme Court‚ 1997 1. Claim: Attorney General Janet Reno‚ the appellant appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act’s special review provisions against the appellee‚ ACLU. 2. Facts: The 1996 Federal Communications Decency Act sought to protect minors from “indecent” and offensive Internet materials. The Act made it a crime to transmit obscene or indecent messages over the Internet. Immediately after the CDA became law‚ twenty
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Finally‚ on July 27‚ 2000‚ Marie Villette (plaintiff) had a carport installed from Sheldorado Aluminum Product (defendant). The covering would collapse six months later on top of the plaintiffs Mercedes Benz. All the plaintiff is requesting is the $3‚000 she has spent on the carport. Ms. Villette filed a lawsuit opposing Sheldorado expecting the return of her $3000. Ms. Villette and Sheldorado‚ had no formal written contract‚ however‚ there was a bill of sale; it is dated 11 July‚ 2000. Ms. Villette
Premium Contract Law Contract law
LAW 150 Mims v. Starbucks Corp. Fact: * Kevin Keevican‚ Kathleen Mims‚ and other former managers filed a suit against Starbucks seeking unpaid overtime and other amounts. * In Starbucks Corp. Stores the manager’s responsibilities include supervising and motivating six to thirty employees including supervisors and assistant managers‚ overseeing customer service and processes employee records‚ payrolls‚ and inventory counts. * He or she also develops strategies to increase revenues
Premium Management Employment
COURT CASES: Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge In this case of Goldberg v. Kelly we have an issue that discusses the termination of welfare to a recipient. Now what seems to be the issue here is that there used to be no federal or state law on how to regulate this and enforce this but only a procedure that the New York State ’s general Home Relief program adopted to use and follow. The sole issue of the problem is accepting the fact that a person with life depending needs could lose their
Premium Trial Hearing Appeal
R v. Latimer The case with Robert Latimer all began with his twelve year old daughter having cerebral palsy and being quadriplegic. Tracy would suffer from many seizures a day and was also believed to have a brain capacity of a four-month old which caused her to be dependent. Tracy underwent many surgeries to try to give her an “easier” life but nothing seemed to chance any changes. No changes for the better or for the worse. So it wasn’t like she was near death. November 19th 1993‚ she was supposed
Premium United States Jury Supreme Court of the United States
The way that Napster collected revenue was by advertisers. Advertisers would pay Napster to infuse their advertisements on Napster’s web site. There was a law suit against Napster that is referred by A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. Although this case is called A&M Records‚ Inc. vs Napster‚ Inc. it consisted of many record companies that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law suit was filed because it is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights
Premium