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
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
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
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
Legal Hurdles With the introduction of Birth Control to the public it had its fair share of legal consequences. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is considered the foundational decision in recognizing the constitutional right of sexual privacy (Stein‚ 2010‚ p. 29). In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut it was stated that Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton were arrested for giving “information‚ instruction‚ and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception” (Stein
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
Illinois‚ Supra and United States v. Di Re‚ 332 U.S. 581 (1948). In Ybarra‚ police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Not only did the police search the tavern and the bartender but all the patrons that
Premium Police Crime Police brutality
You asked me to prepare an Objective Legal Analysis of how Jones v Tsige applies to the Cuthbert`s case. Specifically‚ how the Cuthbert`s use of the nanny cam may both invade and not invade their nanny’s privacy. Background Facts The present case concerns Ryan and Angela Cuthbert. Ryan is a self-employed individual who operates a plumbing company‚ while his wife‚ Angela is presently on the maternity leave‚ but is scheduled to return to her previous employment at the CFO of a Crown Corporation at
Premium Marriage Family Love
uTorrent‚ bitTorrent‚ or StreamCast Network. In 2005‚ a Supreme Court case emerged dealing with the issue of the copyright infringement liability faced by P2P companies. The Supreme Court ruled correctly in the MGM v. Grokster case that P2P file sharing companies are liable for copyright infringement because of the uses of P2P software‚ the knowledge and intention of P2P companies‚ and how it is different from the Betamax case years earlier. P2P software has a wide variety of uses providing solutions
Premium Copyright Copyright infringement File sharing
money had no problem terminating pregnancies if they wished”("Roe v. Wade."). The Roe v. Wade case is about a woman named‚ Norma McCorvey who is referred to as Jane Roe in this case. She was denied to have an abortion in the state of Texas. She decided to be sneaking and still went to the hospital and tried to have an abortion‚ but she was caught and got into a big hassle with the court. The thing that confuses me about this case is that Jane Roe had two kids before and gave them up for adoption
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Fetus