Supreme Court‚ and asked for an appeal‚ saying that she was in fact‚ entitled to monetary restitution from the school district. The U.S Supreme Court ruled‚ that Franklin was right. They also referenced similar cases like “Cannon V. University of Chicago” and “Marbury V. Madison”. In both cases‚ Title IX was enforceable‚ and further used to expand the limitations and boundaries on what all your entitled to under Title IX. But this case also raised another question. Why did the school board not
Premium High school Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison
Wyoming v. Houghton 526 U.S. 295 (1999) FACTS: After a routine traffic stop‚ a police officer noticed a hypodermic syringe in the shirt pocket of the car’s driver‚ which the driver soon admitted was for using drugs. The officer searched the passenger compartment for contraband and came upon a purse‚ which the respondent‚ a passenger in the car‚ claimed was hers. There was drug paraphernalia inside‚ and the respondent was arrested on drug charges. The evidence was admitted at trial and respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Sutton v. Tomco Machining‚ Inc. 129 Ohio St.3d 153‚ 2011-Ohio-2723 Facts of the Case: In this appeal‚ DeWayne Sutton‚ an employee of Tomco Machining‚ Inc. claimed that he injured his back on the job while disassembling a chop saw. Sutton alleged that he was fired within one hour of reporting the workplace injury to Tomco’s president‚ Jim Tomasiak. No reason was specified in the termination; however he was told the firing was not due to his work ethic or job performance or because he had broken
Premium Law Common law
Pierson v. Post Deciding Court: Supreme Court of New York Parties: Pierson v. Post Procedural History: Appellate Court ruled in favor of Post Facts: Post was in pursuit of a fox on a beach with his dogs and hound. Pierson having well known the fox was being chased by Post and his hounds‚ caught up to the fox‚ caught it‚ killed it‚ and carried it off. Post is defendant even though he was the one in original pursuit. Post first sued Pierson but Pierson appealed when the court ruled in Post’s
Free Law Property Appeal
On October 31‚ 1963‚ Detective Martin McFadden was in plain clothes‚ patrolling his downtown beat in Cleveland‚ Ohio‚ an area that he had been patrolling for shoplifters and pick-pocketing the last 30 years. At 2:30 PM‚ he noticed two unknown individuals‚ John Terry and Richard Chilton acting suspiciously‚ standing on a street corner. One of the men walked away and stopped to look in a nearby store window‚ continued walking‚ and on the way back stopped to look in the same store window before rejoining
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
Furman v. Georgia In today’s time discrimination is a highly used factor when it comes to the way people form their opinions about societal issues as well as different individuals we may come in contact with. We base our perceptions of people off of what only the eye can see rather than getting to know a person for the skills they possess and what the can bring to the table. Back in 1967 discrimination was something that was common to use amongst the white or rich community towards the blacks‚
Premium Thurgood Marshall Furman v. Georgia Supreme Court of the United States
Snyder V. Phelps Everyone is entitled to practice their religion. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion. The bill of rights states that this right could never be taken away‚ but does it make it right for a person to use this right to attack a person? On March 3rd‚ 2006 a Marine‚ Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder‚ died of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident in Anbar province‚ Iraq. A week later a funeral service was held in honor of this fallen soldier in his hometown
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Homophobia
Citation: KILARJIAN v. VASTOLA‚ 877 A.2d 372 (2004)‚ Superior Court of New Jersey‚ Chancery Division‚ Somerset County. Decided December 17‚ 2004. Facts: On March 18‚ 2004‚ plaintiff’s‚ Carol Kilarjian and Dave de Castro‚ and defendants‚ John Vastola and Joan Vastola‚ entered into a contract for the sale of 136 East Cliff St.‚ Somerville. The final date was scheduled for June 15‚ 2004. On June 14‚ 2004‚ defendant’s real estate attorney wrote plaintiff’s attorney stating that defendants had elected
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
Treibacher Industrie‚ A.G. v Allegheny Technologies‚ Inc (2006) Facts: The case proceeded to a bench trial‚ where TDY and Treibacher disputed the meaning of the term “consignment”-the delivery term contained in both contracts. TDY introduced experts in the metal industry who testified that the term “consignment‚” according to its common usage in the trade‚ meant that no sale occurred unless and until TDY actually used the TaC. Treibacher introduced evidence of the parties ’ prior dealings
Premium Contract
Name: Tennessee v. Garner Citation: No. 83-1035‚ 83-1070 (1985) Facts: On October 3‚ 1974‚ Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a "prowler inside call." When the police arrived at the scene‚ a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene‚ the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Tennessee v. Garner