Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) “Unreasonable search and seizures” One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
controversial five to four decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case of Ricci vs DeStefano raises the uncomfortable but common question of how far will employers go to favor one race over another? In other words‚ discrimination was at play in the case‚ in a scenario that will be unexpected to readers. The case of Frank Ricci vs. John DeStefano was established through an invalid act in the case of firefighters‚ promoting firefighters to be precise. The case began in the city of New Haven‚ Connecticut
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1964
CASE ANALYSIS Virginia V. Black In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate‚ and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Facts: Lucy made an offer to Zehmer one night while at his restaurant to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50‚000. Zehmer and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Zehmer would sell the farm to Lucy. Zehmer claimed later that the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both drinking at Zehmer’s restaurant and that he only meant the acceptance as a joke. Zehmer didn’t believe that Lucy’s offer was genuine since they were both drinking and went along with
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
King v. Burwell and Judicial Decision-Making Process The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell surrounded the challenge of provision to the Affordable Care Act. The key question the case focused on was whether Obamacare authorized federal tax subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through a state exchange. The challenger‚ King‚ argued the way the law was written can’t allow for states to subsidized insurance through a federal-run exchange. They argued that insurance subsides
Premium United States Constitution United States Law
CRJU 310 Judge Oberholzer April 12‚ 2009 Mapp v. Ohio * Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts: Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house‚ because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers
Premium Jury United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Lucy v. Zehmer I. Statement of the Facts Zehmer owned a Farm that Lucy had made several offers to purchase‚ all of which Zehmer rejected. Lucy met Zehmer in the latter’s restaurant one evening. After drinking‚ they had a substantial discussion about the sale of the farm. Lucy made an offer of $50‚000. Zehmer drafted up Lucy a contract specifying the land‚ the amount‚ title satisfactory to buyer. Lucy took the written agreement and offered $50‚000 to Zehmer who refused to abide to the written agreement
Premium Contract Court
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
upheld in regards to Riggs et al v. Palmer case because one should not be granted inheritance by murdering one’s ancestor. For this reason‚ the New York Court of Appeals has decided on a naturalistic approach‚ which has deemed Elmer Palmer guilty for murdering his grandfather‚ thereby prohibiting Palmer from getting anything from his grandfather’s will. This essentially means that the court argues that judges use their morals in order to determine the outcome of cases. Therefore‚ rejecting the idea
Premium
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