Assessment Item 1 Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas (2007) NSW SC 844 (3 August 2007) Part A Question 1 The case was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court‚ Equity Division. Question 2 The name of the judge was Nigel Rein Nigel Rein was an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW (Equity Division). Question 3 Plaintiff is: Peter Smythe Council for the Plaintiff is: B Kasep Defendant is: Vincent Thomas Council for the Defendant is:
Premium Contract
Plyler v Doe When state and local governments try to pass restrictions for education based on legality of the student they are‚ for the most part‚ brought to a halt by the court system. The courts cite Plyler v Doe‚ but why? What does Plyler v Doe do for undocumented students? Before 1982‚ the year when Plyler v Doe was put into action‚ some Texas local governments were denying funding for undocumented students and charging them a tuition fee of $1‚000.00 per year. The original policy stated
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Education School
“God hates you.” “You’re going to hell.” Could you imagine having to bury your child that returned to American soil‚ dead‚ after fighting a war‚ listening and seeing these kinds of statements? When burying a loved one‚ a person should not have to deal with people picketing at a private funeral. That person is in enough pain and emotional loss for having to bury a family member. This is not more of an inappropriate or inconsiderable time than ever to be causing a negative scene and displaying a strong
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who specialized
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Name: |Date: | |Graded Assignment Korematsu v. the United States (1944) Use the background information and the primary sources in the Graded Assignment: Primary Sources sheet to answer the following questions. (2 points) |Score | | | 1. What did Fred T. Korematsu do that resulted in his arrest and conviction? Answer: (2 points) |Score | | | 2. According to the first paragraph from the excerpts
Premium United States
Brewer v Mann Queen ’s Bench Division 14 October 2010 Case Analysis Where Reported[2010] EWHC 2444 (QB); Official Transcript Case DigestSubject: Sale of goods Other related subjects: Sale of goods; Consumer law Keywords: Bailment; Breach of contract; Breach of warranty; Damages; Hire purchase; Misleading statements; Motor dealers; Trade descriptions; Warranties Summary: The claimant succeeded in her claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract in respect of the sale to her
Premium Contract Contract law
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Arizona v. Gant PALS480-Capstone June 20‚ 2012 The Parties • Plaintiff – State of Arizona • Defendant – Rodney Gant • Appellant – State of Arizona • Respondent – Rodney Gant Procedural History • Respondent‚ Rodney Gant‚ was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle‚ but did
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
against the government‚ representing themselves as just mere pawns only to carry out the player’s bidding while abandoning hope and free will. This similar idea about totalitarian rule was brought up again not too long ago while I was watching the movie‚ “V for Vendetta”. Analyzing the plot and its conflict‚ it
Premium Political philosophy Mongol Empire China