Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say‚ “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal‚ but it has never said how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially‚ the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through
Premium American Civil War African American Slavery
Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a case enacted by‚ “Gonzalo Mendez‚ William Guzman‚ Frank Palomino‚ Thomas Estrada‚ and Lorenzo Ramirez” who “filed suit on behalf of their fifteen…children and five thousand other minor children of ‘Mexican and Latin descent’” (Valencia‚ 2010‚ p.23). They sued Westminster school district because they were denying their children the right to enter schools near their home. The school was in California and was predominantly White and did not allow any Mexican American
Premium Racism Race African American
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
WILLIAMS V THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] 248 CLR 156 I INTRODUCTION Williams v The Commonwealth is an excellent example of a significant turning point in Australian Constitutional history. It challenged Executive power‚ the capacity the Commonwealth had to spend public money‚ and its’ power to enter into contracts without the authorisation of Parliament . The breadth of Executive power is covered under s61 of the Constitution‚ and describes activities which the executive can carry out . The Williams
Premium
Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) involved free speech and human cadavers‚ two topics that naturally incite curiosity. The Mortuary Science Program at the University of Minnesota is a Bachelor of Science program for upperclass undergraduate students. The program’s mission is to prepare students to become licensed funeral directors and morticians. The anatomy course of Mortuary Science Program relies on the generosity of individuals who choose to donate their bodies to science after they have
Premium University Facebook Social media
Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court of the United States 129 S. Ct. 2658; 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009) April 22‚2009‚ Argued June 29‚ 2009‚ Decided This 2009 Supreme Court decision was a result of alleged racial discrimination with regard to internal promotions of nineteen New Haven‚ Connecticut firefighters. New Haven city officials invalidated test results when no Blacks scored high enough to meet the minimum score necessary to be eligible for promotion. Therefore‚ the White and Hispanic candidates
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Week 2 Case Summary For reference file # 8402 date issued January 17‚ 2013 Indexed as MacDonald v. Najafi and another (No.2) 2013 BCHRT 13 Facts The case I picked was heard on June 18 to19‚ 2012 in front of Murray Geiger Adams who is a member of the tribunal. The claimant is Ms. Macdonald‚ who is a university grad that moved to Vancouver from Calgary. The respondents are Mr. Najafi and his company Sign-A-Rama based in Vancouver. Mr. Najafi’s has adult children and is in his 60’s lived
Premium Discrimination Vancouver
------------------------------------------------- A. ------------------------------------------------- Introduction/Statement of the Problem: As the executive director of the National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA)‚ Bob Goodenow is faced with the issue of developing a communications strategy for the NHLPA. It must establish a strong bargaining stance for the players that effectively communicate their position on the salary cap issue‚ while also retain the loyalty of hockey
Premium National Hockey League