county court and court of appeal upheld the verdict Issue: The issue at hand with this case is whether S. 234.1 (2) of the criminal code infringed on the Canadian Bill of Rights & whether the random stopping of motor vehicles by poilice infringed on S. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Laws: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Highway Traffic Act Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act Analysis: This case was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada‚ after a failed appeal in the Court of Appeal
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Stronger with Gold’s Gym in the Corporate World Case Introduction Gold’s Gym Internationally1 As of its establishment in 2002‚ Gold’s Gym has expanded its fitness profile by offering the best equipment and services including‚ Jukari Fit to Flexworkout‚ Zumba‚ Les Mills Body Combat personal training‚ spinning‚ sports conditioning‚ kid’s fitness‚ Pilates and yoga‚ while main taining its core weight lifting tradition. It is also the preferred
Premium
sentence and by the intention of the person using the word. In Article I section 10 the phrase "absolutely necessary" is applied with stronger meaning regarding imposts on imports or exports‚ and is different than the word "necessary" used alone in this case which was intended to mean indispensable by the framers of the Constitution. The bank is helpful to several delegated powers like commerce and military and also other necessary tools such as the
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress
agency designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual apart of the agency. ANALYSIS: The court stated that the disciplinary hearing provided them with proper notice of their violation was and sufficient amount of time to prepare their case to an
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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