Dye 04/03/2015 CJAD 405 MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals‚ Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts: Jimmy Maddox was sentenced to serve a life of imprisonment after he was convicted in a Georgia State court for charges of rape. Maddox filed for a federal Habeas corpus petition after being unsuccessful at a direct appeal for his charges. His reason behind filing the federal habeas corpus was for the court violating the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland for alleging prosecutorial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus Appeal
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. 1 Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Michelle White Professor Laura Hansen-Brown August 23‚ 2012 ZIPPITTELLI V. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2 Summary This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer‚ J.C. Penney Company. Zippittelli testified that she was one of four women who applied for a position within the company and she was overlooked for the job due to her age. All four women had the same job title and
Premium Rite Aid J. C. Penney Discrimination
Case of Braswell v. United States Team A Bridget Sarris‚ Bonnie Kyle‚ Erlyn Cruz‚ Ernest Snyder LAW / 421 Robert Tisher May 27‚ 2013 BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not. From 1965 to 1980‚ petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises
Premium Legal entities Supreme Court of the United States Business law
Non Compete Clause: Good or Bad BUS 311 Nicki Hebert James Slack July 25‚ 2011 Non-compete agreements are a particularly important issue in today’s business world. Three trends that make non-competes especially important in the current business environment are a change in the definition of competition‚ the lack of employee loyalty‚ and the importance of relationship-based selling. As long as these agreements are done according to state law‚ they can be enforceable in the court of law. Any
Premium Contract Employment
treatment to treat the problem they believe is controlling their life‚ or a form of guidance. Throughout the following essay we will be considering the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California and discuss why the following case is important to mental health clinicians. Along with describing the violence risk assessment
Premium Violence Psychology Mental disorder
value of an individual’s property. In order to exercise this jurisdiction‚ the plaintiff must have seized and attached the property. In an effort to expand jurisdiction‚ the court instituted the minimum contacts test. This test was expanded by Hess v. Pawloski‚ when a Massachusetts court determined that due his activities within the state‚ a nonresident of Massachusetts was still subject to the court’s jurisdiction‚ regarding a suit for a traffic accident. The court held that use of a state’s highways
Premium Jurisdiction Civil procedure
or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance." In the case of Kathy I. Palmer‚ Petitioner/Appellee‚ v. Sydney N. Palmer‚ Respondent/Appellant‚ Sydney (husband) referenced the above statute when filing for termination of spousal maintenance. The court had to consider whether a specified end date in the Decree took precedence over the general interpretation of the law. Facts of the Case: Palmer v. Palmer The facts of this case are as follows: The marriage between Palmer and Palmer was dissolved
Premium United States Marriage Employment
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant‚ Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan‚ took almost $30‚000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently‚ and returned the money before any charges were filed‚ but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment
Premium
people peaceably to assemble‚ and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.law.cornell.edu). Over the years there have been many court cases that try to help decipher what is mean by the 1st amendment. In 1942 commercial speech was introduced by the Supreme Court with the Valentine V. Chrestensen case. Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States