GONZALES V. RAICH‚ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222 Facts: Respondents contended that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted physicians‚ patients and care givers from criminal prosecution and allowed for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes with the recommendation and approval of a physician. Respondents who suffered from medical conditions sought to avail themselves of this exemption. Because the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted under the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress
In the case of Smith v. United States‚ the plaintiff‚ John Angus Smith‚ was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking‚ which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1)‚ the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence‚ and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning
Premium Firearm Crime Gun
Obergefell V. Hodges is a Supreme court case that sanctioned same-sex marriage in each of the 50 states. The case occurred when a man named James Obergefell sued his home state Ohio to tell the general population of Ohio how the forbidding of gay marriage wasn’t right and an infringement of his rights as a citizen. Certain rights are counted in the Constitution. Different rights are not identified in the Constitution but rather are seemingly suggested inside its dialect. Most rights ascending by
Premium
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Charter Case Analysis: Vriend v. Alberta 1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual. 2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA. 3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated
Premium
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposing snail in the ginger beer and claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and severe shock upon the sight of the snail. She sought to recover damages from Stevenson‚ claiming that the presence of snail was due to his negligence. Could Mrs. Donoghue bring an action in negligence against Stevenson? Stevenson argued that as they were not in a contractual relationship‚ hence there was no special relationship and therefore he
Premium Contract Contract Tort
STATE v. PRANKCUS Facts: Judd approached the defendant in an attempt to calm him. The defendant then punched Judd in the face. A brief fight ensured between Judd and the defendant during which a shelf with ceramic mugs fell on the floor and shattered. Doucette‚ Anderson and Potkaj attempted to break up the fight. Anderson and Potkaj grabbed Judd by his arms to restrain him while Doucette came up behind the defendant and wrapped his arms around him to stop the fight. The defendant broke free from
Premium Jury Judge Court
In Morrison v. Olsen‚ the issue of the Independent Counsel Provision in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was challenged and the court decided that it was not unconstitutional because it did not violate the separation of powers by taking power from the Executive and giving more to the Judicial or Legislative branches. Alexia Morrison had been appointed as the independent counsel to investigate Morrison to see if he had violated federal law; he sued her arguing that the Independent Counsel had
Premium
Case Review of Business Tort Krista Lee Methodist University In the appeal case of Smith v. Stewart‚ author Haywood Smith‚ Smith’s publisher‚ and secondary publishers contend that the court erred in denying a summary judgment for the claims of defamation‚ false light invasion of privacy‚ negligent infliction of emotional distress‚ intentional infliction of emotional distress and public disclosure of private facts. These charges were brought against Smith by longtime friend‚ Vicki
Premium Law Tort United States
CASE NAME: Miranda v. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) FACTS: The cases of Mr. Miranda‚ Mr. Vignera‚ Mr. Stewart and Mr. Westover had similar cases‚ regarding the admissibility of their confessions. These cases were then addressed together by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Miranda was identified by a witness and arrested‚ but was not notified of his rights‚ although he singed a written confession after several hours of interrogation that stated that he was aware of the rights he was not
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Police