In the case of Mempa v. Rhay‚ which the accused pleaded guilty with the advice of court-appointed counsel to the crime of "joyriding" and was placed on probation for two years. Then soon after the sentence was deferred because he was involved in a burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison but only would receive 1 year with the advice from the parole. This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus
Henry V – William Shakespeare There can be little doubt that Shakespeare intended to present his protagonist in “Henry V” as the popular hero-king. His efforts are mainly concentrated on the portraiture of this “star of England”‚ King Henry‚ whom he deliberately chose out of the page of history as the finest representative of the best distinctive type of English character. He wanted his play to lead triumphantly to an English victory against overwhelming odds at Agincourt. What is not agreed among
Premium Henry VI of England Henry V of England Henry IV of England
recognized that those inmates do have less rights than free citizens. Taking away some rights of the inmates is a valid punishment and by restricting these rights it helps in maintaining security in prisons. The title of the case that I chose was Wolff v. McDonnell. This case was very important because it uniformed certain rights and freedoms within correctional facilities. “Although inmates received some procedural safe-guards to protect them against the notorious abuses of disciplinary meetings‚ they
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Law United States Constitution
and one man named Homer Plessy fought against his arrest for not getting up and allowing a white man to have his seat in New Orleans‚ Louisiana. Plessy’s case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson‚ the Supreme Court ruled “separate but equal” (Knappman 468). Despite the Supreme Court decision-Plessy and other cases‚ African Americans continued to fight against the Jim Crow Laws. The National Association of the Advancement of Colored
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court of the United States Plessy v. Ferguson
Citation: Powell V U.S. No. 405‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1968‚ 392 U.S. 514‚ 88 S. Ct. 2145 L. Ed 2d 1254‚ 1968 U.S. 1140. Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December‚ 1966 for public intoxication‚ which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism‚ which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior‚ a
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
Jekyll and Hyde The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Muller v Oregon is the judicial equivalent of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; with one notable exception; Robert Louis Stevenson’s story is fiction; the Court’s version is real and still scaring people today. The repercussions of the Muller v Oregon decision are factual‚ and the effects of the ruling‚ seemingly‚ have a life of their own. It is astonishing that a challenge to the Oregon law and refusal to pay a $10 misdemeanor fine has had the long-ranging
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
U On May 15‚ 2000‚ the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. The holding of this case and the unconstitutionality eventually resulted in the “freedom” of Antonio J. Morrison‚ who evaded charges under the act that would provide a victim‚ Christy Brzonkala‚ of gender-motivated violence a cause of action against the perpetrator for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. This
Premium United States Congress Commerce Clause Supreme Court of the United States
legal standing of the doctrine of ’separate legal personality ’ as it was developed in Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Even though this doctrine is the stone head of the English company common law‚ the courts introduced several exceptions which undermined the ’veil of incorporation ’. The exceptions were firstly introduced in the mid-60s by Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd. V IRC [1969]‚ and allowed the court to lift the veil and hold the shareholders liable for the company
Premium Corporation Corporations law Legal entities
perform the greatest ability to protect all members of a society. In the case of Miranda v Arizona‚ the courts had to decide whether or not a man was deprived of his freedoms while in police custody. Basically Miranda v Arizona completely changed the way police apprehend and interrogate suspects. However it was not only Miranda‚ but many other instances where the majority has not protected all minorities. Vignera v New York was another similar instance where a suspect was forced to sign statements
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Police
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States