Obergefell v. Hodges is the Supreme Court Case that gay marriage legal in all fifty states. The case required that all states allow gay marriages and recognize gay marriages that happened in other states. It was a 5-4 decision that was based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment. Obergefell wanted his marriage in Maryland to be recognized in Ohio‚ so he could collect the benefits from his partners death. Hodges is the director of the Ohio Health Department. The Supreme Court decided
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Marriage
CASE LAWS In West Coast Resorts v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada‚ an interesting question arose that whether the loss resulting from the sinking of a barge at her mooring in calm water was a mployed in marine unintentional ingress of sea water at a part of the barge and in a way where sea water was not expected to enter in the normal course of things. The water that entered did so because‚ as the consequence of worm infestation
Premium Tort Law Tort law
sell. Also‚ KK’s response had no intention to get into an agreement upon providing the information hence statement is not an offer: Harvey V Facey - Therefore‚ when Homer mentioned “sounds like a
Premium Contract law Contract Offer and acceptance
Mariners’ Polytechnic Colleges Foundation Rawis‚ Legazpi City Case Study in Management I BSCA 2A1 Submitted by: Submitted to: Jollebee L. Manila Norma M. Villanueva Student Asst. Prof. II I. Title of Case Study: WHICH RULES ARE RULES? II. Statement of Major Problem: Policies are not being implemented well. III. Statement of Facts: a. The head department is undecided on how to implement the rules and which rules
Premium Employment
V. ANALYSIS Market Analysis There is an increasing number of dormitories‚ apartments and condominium units that are housing students and families. This is because of the presence of universities‚ colleges‚ and secondary schools in the area. They also observed the growing number of business establishments such as Internet cafes‚ laundromats‚ cafeterias‚ sari-sari stores and water stations. In the map of proposed site illustrated by Mar‚ there are 2 schools near the area‚ the University of Sto
Premium Convenience store College Filling station
V-Guard Industries Ltd. generates greater efficiency with IBM and SAP Founded in 1977 as a small manufacturing unit‚ V-Guard Industries Ltd. (V-Guard) has grown to become one of the largest electrical appliance manufacturers in India. The company reported revenues of more than $126 million for the 2010 to 2011 financial year‚ and a 43 percent increase in net sales during the same period. V-Guard manufactures electrical products‚ including voltage stabilizers‚ wiring cables‚ pumps‚ motors‚ solar
Premium SAP AG
Legal Studies Assessment Case Study Identify the correct legal citation of the case Citation: R v CAMPBELL (2010) NSWSC 995 Judgement date: 3 September 2010 Parties: Regina‚ Desmond Campbell- offender Judgement of: J Latham Counsel: M Tedeschi QC/ S Herbert- (Regina)‚ S Hughes- (offender) Solicitors: S Kavanagh- Solicitor for public Prosecutions- (Regina)‚ M Bowe Solicitors (Offender) Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: R v Coulter (2005) NSWSC
Premium Law Appeal Jury
The United States legal system gives all people the right to an attorney to help defend the prosecuted individual. The court case Buck v. Davis shows how a person’s rights could be given but in a way that would go against the one being charged for a crime. Duane Buck is an African American who was tried for being involved in a murder of his ex-girlfriend and her friend in the state of Texas. Many different types of evidence showed that Duane Buck had committed that crime and his passed issues
Premium Law United States Constitution Jury
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
CRUZAN‚ BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS‚ CRUZAN ET UX. v. DIRECTOR‚ MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH‚ ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 497 U.S. 261; 110 S. Ct. 2841; 111 L. Ed. 2d 224; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3301 December 6‚ 1989‚ Argued June 25‚ 1990‚ Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. DISPOSITION: 760 S. W. 2d 408‚ affirmed. JUDGES: REHNQUIST‚ C. J.‚ delivered the opinion of the Court‚ in which WHITE‚ O’CONNOR‚ SCALIA‚ and KENNEDY
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States