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
LAW 3112 CASE REVIEW CASE: PAYNE v. CAVE 1789 SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Siti Salwani Razali SUBMITTED BY Abdullah Md Mohabbat 1112221 Abdul Wasey Faheem 1119949 (Section : 3) FACTS OF THE CASE The defendant had made the highest bid in an auction. The defendant had withdrawn his offer before the auctioneer had knocked his hammer. The plaintiff’s counsel opened the case with as: the goods were put up in one lot at an auction. There were several bidders of which the defendant
Premium Auction Auctioneering Contract
Ask any beauty blogger within the Philippines to suggest an all-natural pore and skin care line and you would possibly get this answer—V&M Naturals. The brand has a devoted following‚ thanks to its now-well-known Emu Oil-primarily based pores and skin care line that boasts a wide range of handmade soaps‚ serums‚ creams and other treats for the pores and skin. The brand has grown to consist
Premium Rice Anxiety Organic farming
Bush v. Gore‚ 531 U.S. 98 (2000)‚ is the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Three days earlier‚ the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier‚ the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board‚ 531 U.S. 70 (2000). In a per curiam decision‚ the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards
Premium President of the United States United States Supreme Court of the United States
1) SCHROEDER V LUCY On what contractual grounds could he sue? Schroeder can sue on contractual grounds of unconscionable since the prenuptial agreement was acquired through misrepresentation and duress (Clarkson‚ Miller & Ross‚ 2015). Thus‚ Schroeder can sue on not given an opportunity to get his separate permissible counsel or read the agreement before signing it. Moreover‚ Schroeder can sue on no complete disclosure on Lucy’s debt or assets‚ and fraud since Lucy did not keep her promise to buy
Premium Law Contract Common law
Identify the most important facts surrounding the case: Dr. Y‚ a physician working for a group practice‚ is concerned about Mr. Abelson’s neurological status. Dr. Y scheduled Mrs. Abelson to be admitted to the hospital for testing. Mrs. Abelson is a 67-year-old female patient of Dr. Y. She was admitted to the hospital for a Cerebral Scan. Mrs. Abelson was admitted to the 4th floor of the hospital. After Mrs. Abelson completed the testing‚ she was returned to a room on the 5th floor. Mrs. Abelson
Premium
Title: Mapp v. Ohio Legal Citation: 367 U.S. 643‚ 81 S.Ct. 1680‚ 6 L.ED.2d. 1081 (1961( Procedural History: Mapp petition for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court for the appreal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Statement of key Issues: 1) was the search of Mapps home a violation of the fourth amendment? 2) Was the evidence used against Mapps in court illegal? Facts: On May 23‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at Mapps Home to ask them questions pertaining to someone
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
I. Summary The V-22 Osprey is an aircraft that is currently used in the military. Its unique design of a tilt rotor system has proven to be useful in different mission in the military. However‚ the Congressional Research Service (2009) in their study has said that this helicopter has multiple aerodynamic issues. During the service of this aircraft demonstrated mechanical issues that affected the elements of aerodynamic flight and emergencies situations that caused the V-22 program in constant upgrades
Premium Management Aircraft Unmanned aerial vehicle
for trespass to her bedroom and communal areas: Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse (1937) 56 CLR 605 ENTERING BEDROOM‚ PLACING PLANTS ON FLOOR Presumably‚ Donald intended (Nickells v Melbourne Corporation (1938) 59 CLR 219) the direct interferences (Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182 (‘Southport’)) of entering Alexis’s bedroom and placing plants on the floor. Donald interfered by entering Alexis’s room without authority (Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 (‘Plenty’)) as Alexis revoked
Premium Law Tort Property