was also a crime as well. The Cold War was the most important issue of the presidential campaign of 1948. The Democratic Truman administration‚ feeling pressure from conservative Republicans to ferret out alleged subversive elements‚ brought to court 11 leaders of the Communist Party of the United States for violation of the Smith Act. They were not charged with any overt acts that contributed to violence or revolutionary activity‚ but rather with conspiring to teach and advocate such a activity
Premium World War II Supreme Court of the United States Soviet Union
demand for secret profit that is made through the vendors‚ Example of the cases is Graham v. Cummings‚ a 1904 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case‚ the shareholders of a corporation had authorized the defendant shareholder to sell their stock. The defendant secretly negotiated to receive a higher amount for his stock than for that of his fellow shareholders. The Court concluded that
Premium Management Project management Project
The plaintiff of this case is Harvest States Cooperatives and the defendant is Anderson. Harvest States Cooperatives sued Anderson for breach of contract‚ after Anderson failed to deliver 5‚000 bushels of corn. Anderson had spoken to a representative of the coop over the phone to inquire the price of corn which he had available for sale. Harvest States Cooperatives asked Anderson if he would like to see a contract and Anderson said yes. Following through‚ Harvest States Cooperatives sent Anderson
Premium Contract Contract law Breach of contract
1989‚ a court case Doe v. The University of Michigan‚ was held in a U.S District Court to determine if the University of Michigan’s speech codes on hate speech were violating First Amendment rights. John Doe‚ a former student at the University of Michigan‚ declared that speech codes were in fact‚ infringing upon his education by restricting him from conducting controversial topics that some students deemed offensive. Overall‚ the case was decided by a majority vote by the U.S District Court in favor
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Court and Year Full High Court 2007 District Court of Queensland 2010 New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011 Relevant Facts Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000 Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments After substantial period of default‚ banks sells sold property at auction for $150000. After deduction of sale‚ Bank seeks payment of the guarantor Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges
Premium Law Real estate Jury
MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court of Appeals affirmed‚ upholding trial
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Jane Roe filed a court case against Henry Wade in which she accused Wade of impregnating her by sexual assault (Glazer n. pag). During the case‚ the U.S. Supreme Court first argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention abortion‚ but rather it guarantees a privilege to individual freedom under due process (“Supreme Court Rules on Roe V. Wade‚ The” par. 5). The state of Texas argued that it had convincing motivations to protect the life of an unborn child‚ but the Court countered that by
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States