Citation: Powell V U.S. No. 405‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1968‚ 392 U.S. 514‚ 88 S. Ct. 2145 L. Ed 2d 1254‚ 1968 U.S. 1140. Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December‚ 1966 for public intoxication‚ which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism‚ which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior‚ a
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States
R. v. Tutton‚ [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Arthur Thomas Tutton Respondent and Carol Anne Tutton Respondent indexed as: r. v. tutton File No.: 19284. 1987: November 10; 1989: June 8. Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz*‚ Estey*‚ McIntyre‚ Lamer‚ Wilson‚ Le Dain*‚ La Forest and L ’Heureux-Dubé JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law -- Criminal negligence -- Necessaries of life -- Manslaughter -- Diabetic child dying
Premium Criminal law
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The March for Life Protest In 1973‚ Jane Roe filed a court case against Henry Wade in which she accused Wade of impregnating her by sexual assault (Glazer n. pag). During the case‚ the U.S. Supreme Court first argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention abortion‚ but rather it guarantees a privilege to individual freedom under due process (“Supreme Court Rules on Roe V. Wade‚ The” par. 5). The state of Texas argued that it had convincing motivations to protect the life of an unborn child
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
there is to know about judicial review. So when it comes to the case of Marbury V. Madison I knew the basics of the case but I did not know the reasons and all the facts. When I picked this case it was out of confusion behind the events that gave the Supreme Court its powers. Through examining the legal‚ environmental and personal perspective of the case we can get to the bottom of why they ruled way they did. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind because it was questioning who had
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Marbury v. Madison
In the Greynolds v. Kurman case‚ I agree with the court’s decision. “There was sufficient evidence to support a finding of lack of informed consent” (Pozgar & Santucci‚ 2015‚ p. 339). When I read the case it seemed like the physicians did not put any effort in explaining the complete picture‚ including the Greynolds options‚ and letting them decide what they wanted. By law‚ “when there is doubt as to a patient’s capacity to consent‚ the consent of the legal guardian or next of kin should be obtained”
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
Chap 29 United domains Corp v Brian Pty Ltd(p200): Was the agreement a joint venture or partnership? Decision: High court held that the parties were in a partnership; hence United Domain was entitled to share in profit. Canny Gabrial Castle v Volume Sales(p200): Canny Gabrial argued that the 2 companies were joint ventures Decision: Agreement was partnership Polkinghorne v Holland(p205): Was the giving of financial advice outside the ordinary business of the law firm‚ such that the partners
Premium Contract
to all cases summarised in the Partnership Law Updates which have been issued since January 2000 to date. Therefore this Archive operates as a guide to some of the interesting partnership cases decided in common law jurisdictions in recent years. Special thanks are due to Professor Dick Webb (Emeritus Professor of Law in the University of Auckland) for alerting me to many developments contained in this section and to Dr Keith Fletcher of the University of Queensland. . PARTNERSHIP LAW CASES Janurary
Premium Partnership Appeal Legal terms