decision in Jones v. Tsige in 2012‚ resulting in the creation of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion‚ the common law did not include torts that did not entail a personal or financial injury. It is essential the common law includes torts that do not entail actual injury to provide individuals the means of seeking remedies when they are wronged from the wrongdoer responsible for the action. Had the OCA not recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the case of Jones v. Tsige‚ Jones would
Premium Employment Ethics Law
uTorrent‚ bitTorrent‚ or StreamCast Network. In 2005‚ a Supreme Court case emerged dealing with the issue of the copyright infringement liability faced by P2P companies. The Supreme Court ruled correctly in the MGM v. Grokster case that P2P file sharing companies are liable for copyright infringement because of the uses of P2P software‚ the knowledge and intention of P2P companies‚ and how it is different from the Betamax case years earlier. P2P software has a wide variety of uses providing solutions
Premium Copyright Copyright infringement File sharing
Gerstein v Pugh Parties: Gerstein Petitioner‚ Pugh: Respondent Facts: Respondent was arrested on an information (charging documeLabeling Theory and the resulting effects on children in our societynt prepared by prosecutor‚ not reviewed by grand jury or judge) and held without bond at least 30 days without a determination of probable cause. History: Respondent filed a civil suit‚ with Petitioner‚ State Attorney for Dade County‚ as defendant. District Court found for Respondent and ordered probable
Premium Law United States Appeal
their own rights. The ARA never mentioned that a person could not voice their opinions‚ only that they can not impose their ideas or make another person go along with their ideas. The case McCullen v. Coakley‚ the Court examined a law passed in Massachusetts that is different from the one in our case. The Massachusetts law narrowly tailored speech but the court found that it was content neutral.
Premium Ethics Morality Virtue
money had no problem terminating pregnancies if they wished”("Roe v. Wade."). The Roe v. Wade case is about a woman named‚ Norma McCorvey who is referred to as Jane Roe in this case. She was denied to have an abortion in the state of Texas. She decided to be sneaking and still went to the hospital and tried to have an abortion‚ but she was caught and got into a big hassle with the court. The thing that confuses me about this case is that Jane Roe had two kids before and gave them up for adoption
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Fetus
Final Exam Case Brief Padilla v. Kentucky The question here is whether or not the petitioner‚ Jose Padilla‚ will be deported on account that he had plead guilty to a crime but allegedly had his sixth amendment right violated. There are multiply issues here. The first issue here is Padilla plead guilty to a drug offense that took place in the United States. The second issue is he claims his counsel did not inform him about the consequences of his plea bargain and he was misinformed about the possibility
Premium Crime Law Supreme Court of the United States
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ________________________________________ 491 U.S. 397 Texas v. Johnson CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ________________________________________ No. 88-155 Argued: March 21‚ 1989 --- Decided: June 21‚ 1989 This case analysis of Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson was a Supreme Court case that overthrew bans on damaging the American flag in 48 of the 50 states. Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Facts: In the Case of Blackshades v. the United States‚ defendant Alex Yucel‚ a citizen of Sweden‚ was charged with computer hacking using the malware‚ “RAT‚” under his company called Blackshades. Since he is the founder of the Blackshades‚ “Rat” had sold the malicious software to 6‚000 customers. Blackshades is a malware which includes a remote tool‚ called “RAT.” With the malware‚ it enables it to control the victims’ computers. According to the plaintiff‚ the federal government‚ Blackshades
Premium Computer security Security Computer
On June 13th‚ 1966‚ the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case. This ruling established “Miranda Rights‚” a standard police procedure which revolves around the principle that an arresting officer must advise a criminal suspect of his or her rights before being taken into custody and interrogated. The Court’s ruling in this landmark case effectively reinforced the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees
Premium Crime Police Miranda v. Arizona
Case Brief: Sutter v. Hutchings Case Name‚ Citation & Court: Sutter v. Hutchings‚ 254 Ga. 194‚ 327 S.E.2d 717‚ Georgia Supreme Court‚ decided 1985. Parties & Procedural History: Trial Court level: Plaintiff Sutter sues Defendant Hutchings. Defendant filed summary judgment motion‚ and court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. First appeal: Ga. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals again to Ga. Supreme Court. Facts: Mrs
Premium Appeal Law Court