ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury
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
HUDGENS V NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AUGUST 13‚ 2009 DIANE SACHAROFF BMGT 281 SUMMER Our constitution gives us the right under the First Amendment to the Freedom of Speech. This seems like a fairly straight forward right‚ but what many don’t know is that the Constitution only guarantees our right to freedom of speech against abridgement by government‚ federal or state. (Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board‚ 424 U.S. 507 Lexis). In
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Wallace v. Jaffree How did the Three Branches of government respond to the social issues of freedom of religion based on Wallace v. Jaffree case? Name: Thao-My Bui Date: 11/4/2014 IB History of the American Word count: 1989 Table of Contents A. Plan of Investigation 3 B. Summary of evidence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 C. Evaluation of Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…6 D. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Safford v Redding (2009) (Student rights regarding personal searches) • Facts of the case ¬ Savana Redding‚ a thirteen-year-old at Safford Middle School‚ was accompanied to the Assistant Principal Wilson’s office to be questioned about a day planner that contained knives and other illegal items‚ including four prescription-strength‚ and one over-the-counter‚ pain relief pills. ¬ Redding told the principal that she owned the planner but she knew nothing about the medication. Mr. Wilson explained
Premium Education High school Teacher
search a student while law enforcement officers must have probable cause. In the cases of Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding‚ the issues of search and seizure of a student in school are laid out in different scenarios that clearly portray the difference between a constitutional search and an unconstitutional search. The concept of reasonable suspicion is sufficient for the extended search in the Best V. New Jersey case because the student was in clear violation of school policy and the search was
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Police
MICHAEL E. KLEIBER v HONDA OF AMERICA MFG.‚ INC.‚ Plaintiff-Appellant‚ Defendant-Appellee. FRL 302 – Professor Young Group Project INTRODUCTION This appellate case is about a man‚ Michael Kleiber who suffered a debilitating head injury that ultimately lead to his job termination as a factory worker for Honda. Honda claimed that they were unable to accommodate Kleiber’s disability on the basis that Kleiber was not able to perform the job tasks for any alternate job positions. Honda
Premium Fine motor skill Hand Motor control
Summary R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada‚ a verdict which declared abortion laws in the Criminal Code of Canada as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court ruled the laws to have violated the woman’s right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. After the ruling‚ you could not be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for having an abortion without consent of the therapeutic abortion committee
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
enforcement is not hidden anymore‚ the general public can see the police officers performing their jobs. However‚ those officers quick to use gun or Taser lack the skills in de-escalation when dealing with a minor hostile situation. Nevertheless‚ the case of Bryan v. McPherson was related to a situation of officer Brian McPherson and motorist Carl Bryan‚ which Mr. Bryan was pulled over and issued a citation early that same day and headed to southern California from Camarillo to Coronado. I have over
Premium Police Constable Police officer