Package Scheme of Incentives - 2013 1088/(7056)/IND-8‚ dated the 22/02/1989‚ 19. No. IDL-1093/(8889)/IND-8‚ dated the 07/05/1993‚ 20. No. IDL-1093/(9378)/IND-8‚ dated the 06/07/1994‚ 21. No. IDL-1095/(10092)/IND-8‚ dated the 03/01/1996‚ 22. No. IDL-1096/(13251)/IND-8‚ dated the 12/03/1997‚ 23. No. IDL-1096/(13211)/IND-8‚ dated the 20/06/1997‚ 24. No. IDL-1097/(13563)/IND-8‚ dated the 27/11/1997‚ 25. No. IDL-1097/(13637)/IND-8‚ dated the 28/11/1997‚ 26. No. IDL-1097/(13478)/IND-8‚ dated the 29/11/1997
Premium Mumbai Investment Maharashtra
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Miranda V. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim‚ police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although‚ when he put his confession into
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
document in relation to the protest that was deemed disruptive to the learning environment. Procedural History: Students filed suit against the Des Moines Community School District in United States District Court. The District Court dismissed the case‚ upholding the “constitutionality of the school authorities’ actions on the grounds it was reasonable to prevent disturbance of school discipline”. F. Supp. 971 (1966). On appeal‚ the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the decision when
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Lucy v. Zehmer I. Statement of the Facts Zehmer owned a Farm that Lucy had made several offers to purchase‚ all of which Zehmer rejected. Lucy met Zehmer in the latter’s restaurant one evening. After drinking‚ they had a substantial discussion about the sale of the farm. Lucy made an offer of $50‚000. Zehmer drafted up Lucy a contract specifying the land‚ the amount‚ title satisfactory to buyer. Lucy took the written agreement and offered $50‚000 to Zehmer who refused to abide to the written agreement
Premium Contract Court
Civ Pro II I. Joinder A. Joinder By ∆s: 3d Party Claims (Impleader Rule 14) 1. Cases a. Price v. CTB – Latco moved to file a 3rd party complaint against ITW who designed the nails used in the chicken house. Can implead under Rule 14 against someone who may be liable “A 3rd party claim will not be permitted when it is based upon a separate & independent claim. Rather‚ the 3rd party liability must in some way be derivative of the original claim; a 3rd party may be impleaded
Premium Law Contract Common law
many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective‚ Martin McFadden‚ of the Cleveland Police Department‚ Ohio. According to the officer
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
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
U.S. Supreme Court TEXAS v. JOHNSON‚ 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397 Citation: Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. Date Decided: June 21‚ 1989 Facts of case: At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas‚ Texas‚ Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution