Plyler v. Doe was one of many legal cases we talked about over the course of this semester in our SEI class. This case was the most interesting to me and so I thought I would share my knoedlge on this court case. This court case was brought to the suprieme court where the defendant was Plyler and the plaintiff was Doe. The Doe family was of Mexican orgin and were from Texas. The definedants argued that undoumented children were not “persons” and this was very alarming to me! The state was denying
Premium United States Education Immigration to the United States
recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum sentence
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
responsibility of the law to change society or to protect the original intent of the country’s forefathers? The challenge with the original document is it left out everyone that was not a white male‚ meaning women and people of color. With regards to civil rights and liberties‚ the law should accommodate the needs of a society rather than dominate a select group or groups of people due to an existing standard of racial oppression. One of the difficulties regarding the Plessy vs. Ferguson case was the fact
Premium United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution American Civil War
of personal privacy‚ then a court will order disclosure. See Ray. Even still‚ the requested information must shed light on the agency’s performance of it’s statutory duties. See Ray. This is also referred to as the “central-purpose” doctrine. See Law Review. Meaning‚ does
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Arshiya Qasba 20141036 B.A LLB section ‘A’ Case: McGuire v. Almy CASE BRIEF Facts: Mcguire‚ a nurse (P) was hired to take care of Almy (D)‚ a mentally unfit person. One day while D was locked up in the room‚ he became violent. P entered the room and saw D holding the leg of a chair in her hand as if she was going to hit someone. The P tried to grab it from D. D struck the P with it and injured her. P sued D for charges of assault and battery
Premium Law Appeal Tort
R. v Burns case Brief Case Facts The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia‚ posing as a mob boss‚ it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They
Premium Appeal Crime Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Assignement 1 contracts Sayres v. Wheatland Group‚ L.L.C.‚ 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009) CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void‚ invalid‚ and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved
Premium Contract
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 Facts: Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposing snail in the ginger beer and claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and severe shock upon the sight of the snail. She sought to recover damages from Stevenson‚ claiming that the presence of snail was due to his negligence. Could Mrs. Donoghue bring an action in negligence against Stevenson? Stevenson argued that as they were not in a contractual relationship‚ hence there was no special relationship and therefore he
Premium Contract Contract Tort
2000 CASE DIGESTS C R I M I N A L L A W SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Self-Defense The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and its authorship. By this admission‚ the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must establish all elements of the justifying circumstance. The nature and number of wounds inflicted disprove the plea of self-defense because they demonstrate determined effort to kill and not just defend himself. (People v. Magayac
Premium Criminal law Rape
Business Law Kikuchi‚ Nikka Lei N. October 14‚ 2014 Cuadra v. Monfort Case Digest Statement of the facts: I. Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were classmates in Grade Six at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9‚ 1962 their teacher assigned them‚ together with three other classmates‚ to weed the grass in the school premises. While thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband‚ an ornamental object commonly worn by young girls
Free Logic Parent Mother