Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say‚ “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal‚ but it has never said how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was a case enacted by‚ “Gonzalo Mendez‚ William Guzman‚ Frank Palomino‚ Thomas Estrada‚ and Lorenzo Ramirez” who “filed suit on behalf of their fifteen…children and five thousand other minor children of ‘Mexican and Latin descent’” (Valencia‚ 2010‚ p.23). They sued Westminster school district because they were denying their children the right to enter schools near their home. The school was in California and was predominantly White and did not allow any Mexican American
Premium Racism Race African American
WILLIAMS V THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] 248 CLR 156 I INTRODUCTION Williams v The Commonwealth is an excellent example of a significant turning point in Australian Constitutional history. It challenged Executive power‚ the capacity the Commonwealth had to spend public money‚ and its’ power to enter into contracts without the authorisation of Parliament . The breadth of Executive power is covered under s61 of the Constitution‚ and describes activities which the executive can carry out . The Williams
Premium
My first take-away came reading the Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol Case. While I was reading this case‚ I was sure that Mr. Poore had established a claim under GINA since he was terminated three days after he disclosed his wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I assumed he was covered under GINA because it is unlawful to discharge an employee because of the genetic tests of an individual’s family members. This was an important take-away for me because it helped me understand what constitutes
Premium Management Employment Ethics
that his termination was a combination of legitimate reasons for example reducing costs with illegitimate reasons incapacity under a mixed motives theory. Question 3: Falstaff does not meet the requirements to make the claim. According to Grindle v. Watkins‚ courts use the McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate an ADA claim.
Premium Employment Management Law
Case Brief: R v.Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar‚ 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence‚ registration‚ and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh‚ the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note‚ and a photocopy of the vehicle registration. When inquired about the spelling of
Premium Appeal English-language films Judgment
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Sheppard v. Maxwell‚ was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant’s right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular‚ the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife‚ of which he was convicted‚ because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive‚ pervasive‚ and
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Crime