which are marriage‚ death‚ and birth if reported to legal office‚ observations made while on public duty like how many times an officer has had disciplinary actions against him or her while on duty. Cases filed in courts prior
Premium Crime Law Police
Part 2 - Choose ONE of the options [pic] Part 1 - Choose one part of the assigned textbook question to answer An important concept this week is jurisdiction. As the text explains‚ a court must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. Subject matter jurisdiction is rather straight forward - the court must have jurisdic tion to hear the particular type of dispute (see my video for further explanation of this concept). Now look at Question 2 (p. 71) and pick either b‚ c‚ or d
Premium Law Jurisdiction Appeal
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal
1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court. Lee V. Weisman 120 L.EDd. 2d 467 (1992) United States Supreme Court 2. Summary
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright‚ 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They
Premium Crime Police Law
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992‚ when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked‚ he applied for the position to be directly
Premium Appeal Standard Oil Chevron Corporation
The question before the Supreme Court concerning the Young v. UPS. Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require an employer to provide the same work accommodations to an employee with pregnancy-related work limitations as to employees with similar‚ but non-pregnancy related‚ work limitation? (http://www.oyez.org/cases) Samuel Bagenstos on behalf of the petitioner argued that UPS violated the second clause of the PDA. To his understanding the second clause means an employee seeking accommodation
Premium Pregnancy Abortion Human rights
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
State v. Evans‚ 671 N.W. 2d 720 (Iowa‚ 2003) In the late 1990’s Rebecca Arnold was attending Scott County Community College for nursing. While attending college Arnold encountered Hubert Evans‚ a published photographer with a foot fetish. It was during this random interaction that Evans asked Arnold to photograph her feet‚ Arnold declined. Evans had even told Arnold that he helped other women‚ whose pictures he had taken become “big models”. At some point in 1998‚ Evans obtained Arnold’s telephone
Premium Abuse Iowa Harassment
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court