charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29‚ 2014 and decided on June 25‚ 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.
Premium
have addressed the constitutional rights of individuals and groups. These decisions have limited as well as expanded the rights of the members of these groups. Cases such as Korematsu v. United States and Roe v. Wade are examples of the limitation and expansion of rights. The historical circumstances surrounding the case of Korematsu v. U.S. are as follows. In the 1940’s there was a strong anti-Japanese feeling throughout all of America. There was an act passed requiring all people of Japanese
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Your honor‚ ladies and gentlemen of the jury‚ theft‚ as defined by the Florida State Code 812.014‚ is when a person knowingly obtains or uses‚ or endeavors to obtain or use‚ the property of another with intent to‚ either temporarily or permanently: (1) deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property OR (2) appropriate the property to his or her won use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. In addition‚ it is a felony‚ as well as grand
Premium Traffic sign Evidence Witness
GONZALES V. RAICH‚ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222 Facts: Respondents contended that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted physicians‚ patients and care givers from criminal prosecution and allowed for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes with the recommendation and approval of a physician. Respondents who suffered from medical conditions sought to avail themselves of this exemption. Because the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted under the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress
NASH v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACTS: Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams‚ which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge‚ faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Hurst v. Florida 577 US _ (2016) 2. The petitioner‚ Timothy Hurst‚ was convicted of first degree murder and the jury recommended the death penalty to the judge in Florida‚ who then sentenced Hurst to death. Hurst appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and was granted resentencing. The Florida Supreme Court rejected Hurst’s argument and reaffirmed his sentence. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. 3. Hurst had bound‚ gagged‚ and then stabbed his coworker over 60 times during
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Murder Court
Russell v. the Queen (1882): This case fell according to the JCPC under powers in favor of the federal government. The reasoning for this case is not convincing. The reason for this is that it does not ban alcohol for the entire country‚ but instead merely restricts and regulates it. The legislation for this case could have fallen under: section 92 (9)‚ which deals with saloons‚ taverns‚ and shops; section 92 (13) which is about property and civil rights in the province; or section 92 (16) which
Premium United States Canada United States Constitution
City Council) owe a duty of care to the particular plaintiffs in the circumstances? Prior cases really only dealt with the ‘builders’ being responsible for the defect in the construction of a particular structure. In recent cases‚ Sunset Terraces‚ it was outlined that Councils do in fact owe a ‘Duty of Care’ thus the rule in Bowen v Paramount Builders Ltd crafted by Richmond P can be applied to our current case. Consequently‚ when the DCC selected a certifier who negligently approved unsound plans
Premium Tort
time of making of the charter is so classed. It has no future assurance that the owner will continue to act to retain the class . The loss of the class may be due to unseaworthiness or some other breach of ship-owners obligations. Routh v. Macmillan In the case the merchant at New York chartered a ship ‘Hannah Eastee’ classed A1 ship at Lloyd’s for carrying a load of wheat to England. But due to bad management she runs off from A1 power. The cargo arrived safe but the merchants sued for the extra
Premium Contract Contract law Law
trevor v whitworth [1887] case i need to get this case ‚ what is the case is in about the face and the courts decision Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor[1990] 1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans to the respondents and the loan was secured by documents and guarantees. The documents evidencing the loans showed that the hotel whose shares were being purchased by a company had given financial assistance to that company. This act contravened Section 67 of the Companies
Premium Bond Debt Platoon