1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Bria Payton Case Brief: United States v. Peterson‚ 483 F.2d 1222 (1973) Issue: Is self-defense available for a justifiable homicide case? Facts: The victim‚ Charles Keitt‚ drove to an alley way to obtain windshield wipers off the defendant’s car‚ Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson observed the victim‚ Mr. Keitt‚ doing this and confronted him with an altercation. The victim went back to his car and the defendant‚ Mr. Peterson‚ returned inside his home. The victim was about to leave‚ but because the defendant
Premium
Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Texas v. Johnson has been a controversial one‚ as it involves the burning of our national symbol‚ the American flag. It leads to the question: Does the desecration of the American flag a way of expressing speech that is protected by the first amendment? Shouldn’t the destruction of a true American symbol be protected and preserved‚ as it is a symbol that represents our country? There is a great amount of criticism that Texas v. Johnson has been faced with; most
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death‚ Dr. Samuel Sheppard complained that the press prevented him from having a fair trial. The case then was transferred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States‚ and has 9 justices. It takes audiences with cases that involve the constitution‚ federal laws‚ treaties‚ or foreign ambassadors. The case Sheppard v. Maxwell was called to the Supreme Court because of an issue with the Constitution in a lower court. November 1‚ 1965‚ Sheppard
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
In 1927‚ there was a case called Buck V. Bell‚ which in this particular case it involved a hearing that was required to determine whether or not the enforced eugenic sterilization was a wise thing to do. Today‚ I will write about The Supreme Court of Buck V. Bell‚ the definition of eugenic movement‚ and the role of eugenic movement in this case‚ and I will also address Oliver’s Wendell Holmes statement. The main person in this case was named Carrie Buck; she was a feebleminded woman who was committed
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Childbirth
of the Motor Vehicle to the Seller A distinction between voluntary delivery and involuntary delivery of the motor vehicle is essential to further clarify the context of unlawful deprivation in this thesis. The case of Aznar v. Yapdiangco[ G.R. No. L-18536‚ March 31‚ 1965] elucidates a case wherein the delivery of the movable property is involuntary‚ and is therefore considered as stolen
Premium Common law Common law Property
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law
Davis v. Davis‚ Justice Daughtrey created an epoche of the law when she‚ unlike previous judges‚ based her decision on the recognition of a new category more relevant to the case rather than relying on one previously established. She casts aside conventional thoughts and residual knowledge by declaring the case to present a "question of first impression" which will require the court to act through common law. Although Justice Daughtrey relates other statutes‚ cases‚ and constitutions to the case‚ she
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
A Bill to End All Religious Tax Exemptions Imagine stepping into your church‚ with their very few accolades supporting its structure‚ being unable to pay for its electricity‚ and the products that they need for regular masses. With most of the income coming from the people‚ it will not fully support the stability of keeping the church intact. The church is at standstill in which they will eventually unable to pay their bills to the fact that now they have to contribute to our nations taxes. Ladies
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Public finance
The main focus point and argument regarding both the Stanford v. Kentucky and Roper v. Simmons case rely mainly on the eight amendment. Throughout both cases‚ the eighth amendment played a key factor in determining the court’s decision‚ regarding whether or not Simmons or Stanford would be facing the death penalty. Both “The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.” The eighth amendment states
Premium Capital punishment Crime Roper v. Simmons