Bria Payton Case Brief: United States v. Peterson‚ 483 F.2d 1222 (1973) Issue: Is self-defense available for a justifiable homicide case? Facts: The victim‚ Charles Keitt‚ drove to an alley way to obtain windshield wipers off the defendant’s car‚ Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson observed the victim‚ Mr. Keitt‚ doing this and confronted him with an altercation. The victim went back to his car and the defendant‚ Mr. Peterson‚ returned inside his home. The victim was about to leave‚ but because the defendant
Premium
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
In the state of Ohio‚ the courts have taken a pro-business approach‚ at least regarding the nursing home industry‚ as is evidenced‚ by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case‚ the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home‚ an Ohio nursing home‚ by a former resident‚ Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home‚ she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
NIRMA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAW CASE ANALYSIS Mallella Shyamsunder V. State Andhra Pradesh Course Name: Evidence Law B.A.‚ LL.B. (Hons) SEMESTER-VII Under the Guidance of: Mr. U. Vardharajan Assistant Professor Submitted By: Manushi Yadav (11BAL127) Introduction This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh‚ whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 30.03.2005
Premium Evidence law Andhra Pradesh
Administration Law November 24‚ 2012 Korb v. Raytheon‚ 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass) case involves an employee‚ Lawrence J. Korb and Raytheon Corporation the company. “Korb was terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operation of Raytheon Corporation because he publicly expressed opinions‚ which was a conflict of interest with the corporation’s economic concern” (http://www.loislaw.com.libdatab.strayer.edu/pns/index.htp). The case involves freedom of speech‚ information and challenges
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Abstract In the case of White v. Gibbs‚ the plaintiff‚ Mrs. Debbie White‚ sued O’Malley’s Tavern alongside Patrick Gibbs. Gibbs served as bartender at the tavern during the night in question. Mrs. White seeks settlement under the state of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act. Under the Dram Shop Act‚ a bartender assumes liability to any persons injured who were served alcohol while exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication (Todd‚ 1986). Since the two parties reside in different states‚ the case was brought to the
Premium Civil procedure Plaintiff United States
1 2 CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1 I INTRODUCTION The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case‚ analyze both the High Court majority
Premium Common law Law Crime
Danielle Trefz HONR259N 12 April 2011 Plessy v. Ferguson In 1892‚ Homer Plessy‚ a man of 1/8th African descent‚ bought a first class ticket and boarded a train traveling within Louisiana. Upon discovery of his mixed heritage‚ the conductor ordered him to move to the designated colored car. He was arrested when he refused to move; a violation of The Separate Car Act which required separate but equal accommodations for African Americans and Whites on railroads. Thus began the fight against the
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board of Education