Which in this case‚ the court ordered him to pay half the amount due. The court cannot allow him to pay only half because of the formula they must abide by. The formula will take into consideration his unemployment. In the Borowsky‚ the court had to follow the formula‚ even though the defendant was unemployed at the time. In Moncada v. Moncada‚ the court found that the petition was insufficient. The court also ordered when
Premium Divorce Marriage Family law
In the sole dissent of the Plessey v. Ferguson case‚ Justice Harlan proclaimed that “[o]ur Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens” (Linder‚ 2016). Yet trials in America have long included conversations about race‚ such as with the infamous O. J. Simpson trial. Legal distinctions based on race are also frequently made‚ such as is done when considering college admission. These conversations and distinctions are allowed because in reality‚ neither the Constitution
Premium O. J. Simpson murder case O. J. Simpson African American
Dye 04/03/2015 CJAD 405 MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals‚ Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts: Jimmy Maddox was sentenced to serve a life of imprisonment after he was convicted in a Georgia State court for charges of rape. Maddox filed for a federal Habeas corpus petition after being unsuccessful at a direct appeal for his charges. His reason behind filing the federal habeas corpus was for the court violating the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland for alleging prosecutorial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus Appeal
is a mere appendage of Eastfield Ltd. This being the case‚ it is necessary to examine the exact relationship between Capital Pty Ltd and Eastfield Ltd and determine the likelihood of the courts lifting the corporate veil. Separate Entity Salomon v Salomon & Co established the key principle that an “incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its founder‚ shareholders and directors”. To further this point‚ the Albazero case provided authority within a group of companies‚ whereby
Premium Corporation Subsidiary Parent company
Mathews v. Eldridge James Schwerner FIRAC Facts: Title II of the Social Security Act provides cash benefits to disabled workers. A man by the name of Eldridge was awarded these benefits in June of 1968. Eldridge stayed on this benefit plan until March of 1972 when he received a questionnaire regarding the current state of his medical condition. Eldridge claims that he had filled out the questionnaire conveying the fact that he was still in need of the benefits that he was entitled to; however the
Premium
I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially‚ the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through
Premium American Civil War African American Slavery
petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968‚ the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore‚ a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation‚ accompanied by
Premium Police Crime Constable
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Case Summary: -Bob owns a Jewelry store -Sam operates electronic security equipment store -Bob and Sam are friends -Monday‚ Bob held a casual conversation with Sam about fitting his store with "closed circuit television and the best available electronic locks" -Tuesday‚ Sam sent Bob a Quotation of price "Lists of models and List of price" -Wednesday‚ Bob Replied BY POST. "Choice of Supreme Model for camera" -Posted to old address‚ Sam received on Saturday and emailed on the same day "
Premium Contract
Georgia v. Randolph is a landmark case pertaining to the search of a private resident without a search warrant where one resident gives law enforcement personnel consents to conduct a search and the other member objects. This particular case involved a married couple Scott and Janet Randolph‚ who were having marriage problems. Janet decided to leave Scott taking their son with her to Canada (Wood 2007 para 1). After being gone for a little over a month she and the child returned to the same residents
Premium Family Supreme Court of the United States Mother