later found guilty. The petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968‚ the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore‚ a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation‚ accompanied by
Premium Police Crime Constable
Clements v Clements case. This case is of great significance which revolves around a severe motorcycle accident that took place from 2009 to 2012‚ which resulted in the plaintiff‚ Mrs Clements suffering severe traumatic injuries. The verdict still remains undecided in the Supreme Court of Canada based on the improper use of the But For Test and The Material Contributions Test. The abundance of information presented in the three court systems depict why is why it is such a difficult case to solve
Premium Law Jury Crime
Bush v Schiavo 885 So. 2d 321 (2004) a. Plaintiff: Jeb Bush‚ Governor of Florida b. Defendant: Michael Schiavo‚ Spouse of Theresa Schiavo II. Court Decision By: Supreme Court of Florida III. Procedural History: Mr. Schiavo requested the guardianship court to permit him to end the life-prolonging procedures that were supporting his wife‚ who was in a persistent vegetative state. Theresa Schiavo’s parents‚ Robert and Mary Schindler‚ opposed the motion and brought the case in to trial. After the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Mapp v. Ohio‚ noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady‚ Dolly Mapp‚ who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted‚ Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
CASE NOTE MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD KYLE CROSS I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723 Parties Musumeci‚ lessee (Plaintiff) Winadell Pty Ltd‚ lessor (Defendant) Date 4 August 1994 Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) Coram Santow J II LITIGATION HISTORY This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages‚ and claim for relief against forfeiture. III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The
Premium
In the present case‚ the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case‚ Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though‚ his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some‚ but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard‚ this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school‚ so the
Premium United States Discrimination Race
of 5 feet 2 inches. (Dothard v. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977) Rawlinson’s perused her arguments that weight wasn’t an issue to perform the necessary job duties of a corrections officer because of her weight. Rawlinson’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. Rawlinson’s continue with a civil complaint filed by Southern Poverty Law Center and district complaint that’s known as a Supreme Court Case Dothard V. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977)
Premium Rape Gender Sexual intercourse
Even though the Convention on the European Convention on Human Rights separates from other human rights treaties because it has its own judicial body‚ looking at their case law for guidance can still be useful. In the Belilos v. Switzerland case‚ the Court decided that a interpretative declaration was to be treated like a reservation. Further‚ because of article 64 § 1 of the Convenetion‚ that requires "precision and clarity" ‚ the reservation in question
Premium Law Contract Contract law
Furman v. Georgia Paper Mary Amon CJS/221 University of Phoenix Gaylia Clark William Henry Furman v. State of Georgia In the year 1972‚ January in the State of Georgia. A gentleman named William Henry Furman went into a house to rob. In the middle of that night the resident woke up to see Furman robbing the house. In the process of escaping Furman tripped and his firearm fell and went off at that very time‚ killing the resident. The death was a tragic one‚ if one could describe. Furman did not
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga Case Name: California v Hodari Citation: 499 U.S. 621 Date Decided: 1991 Area of Law: Fourth Amendment Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court‚ in which justice Rehnquist‚ CJ‚ joined and White‚ Blackmun‚ O’ Conner‚ Kennedy‚ and Souter‚ JJ‚ joined. Stevens‚ filed a dissenting opinion‚ in which Marshall‚ J.‚ joined Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution