1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court. Lee V. Weisman 120 L.EDd. 2d 467 (1992) United States Supreme Court 2. Summary
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright‚ 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They
Premium Crime Police Law
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal
The question before the Supreme Court concerning the Young v. UPS. Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require an employer to provide the same work accommodations to an employee with pregnancy-related work limitations as to employees with similar‚ but non-pregnancy related‚ work limitation? (http://www.oyez.org/cases) Samuel Bagenstos on behalf of the petitioner argued that UPS violated the second clause of the PDA. To his understanding the second clause means an employee seeking accommodation
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Human rights
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
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992‚ when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked‚ he applied for the position to be directly
Premium Appeal Standard Oil Chevron Corporation
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court
is that enough? If not‚ what should we do? The letters alone are not enough to help Mr. Jamison. Herrera v. Collins says that‚ generally‚ a “free-standing” claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence does not state a ground for federal habeas relief‚ unless it is coupled with an independent constitutional violation that occurred in the criminal proceedings. Herrera v. Collins‚ 506 U.S. 390‚ 400-01 (1993). The Court seemingly left open the question of whether a very powerful showing
Premium Jury Law Supreme Court of the United States
another point which the authors addressed in the article. In Turp v. Canada (2012)‚ the respondent (Canada) was brought up on charges for opting out of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA) (2012). The act was put in place as a measure to ensure Canada meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol. However the Canadian government withdrew from the KPIA‚ and was subsequently brought to federal court. The court dismissed the case without cost‚ as they found the government’s reasoning for opting
Premium Management Globalization Strategic management