HUDGENS V NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AUGUST 13‚ 2009 DIANE SACHAROFF BMGT 281 SUMMER Our constitution gives us the right under the First Amendment to the Freedom of Speech. This seems like a fairly straight forward right‚ but what many don’t know is that the Constitution only guarantees our right to freedom of speech against abridgement by government‚ federal or state. (Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board‚ 424 U.S. 507 Lexis). In
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
them financially with an active lawsuit that will make the news. The laws should have regulations on lawsuits. Lawsuits can be dragged out for years and can affect both parties financially and mentally. For instance‚ the Chungs are being sued by Roy Pearson and the Chungs suffered and almost lost everything due to lawsuit in legal fees and the loss of business (Takruri‚ 2007). The reasons many drag the lawsuits out over years is due to the hopefulness that the lawsuit is dropped or settled out of court
Premium Lawsuit Tort law
The KWETEY v. BOTCHWAY AND ANOTHER case explains the principle of “you cannot give what you do not have” which has its Latin as “Nemo dat quod non habet”. In this case‚ the bank‚ wanted to sell a boat that rightfully belonged to Kwetey and this was established by the court to be against the principle stated supra. The facts in Kwetey v Botchway are that the plaintiff had mortgaged his house to the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) to secure a loan to replace a broken marine engine in a 40-footer
Premium Breach of contract Breach of contract Damages
Bria Payton Case Brief: United States v. Peterson‚ 483 F.2d 1222 (1973) Issue: Is self-defense available for a justifiable homicide case? Facts: The victim‚ Charles Keitt‚ drove to an alley way to obtain windshield wipers off the defendant’s car‚ Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson observed the victim‚ Mr. Keitt‚ doing this and confronted him with an altercation. The victim went back to his car and the defendant‚ Mr. Peterson‚ returned inside his home. The victim was about to leave‚ but because the defendant
Premium
1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
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
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
The Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees was a case regarding the limiting and prohibition of textbooks‚ removing books from the library and deleting courses from the curriculum. The case was disregarded by the district court‚ and was brought to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Ultimately‚ the court ruled that the school had a right to establish whatever curriculum that it wanted‚ but it was not allowed to restrict learning. The student’s right
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution High school
Nick Crusco 10/09/2013 Mr. Cooper Criminal Justice Powell v Alabama A group of African-American youths were on a freight train through Alabama. They got into a fight with some white youths‚ throwing the white boys from the train. A message was sent‚ requesting all blacks be removed from the train. Two white girls on the train testified that they had been raped by six different youths in turn. The youths were taken into custody. The community was very hostile‚ as a mob met the youths. The trial
Premium Law Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Court
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. 1 Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Michelle White Professor Laura Hansen-Brown August 23‚ 2012 ZIPPITTELLI V. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2 Summary This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer‚ J.C. Penney Company. Zippittelli testified that she was one of four women who applied for a position within the company and she was overlooked for the job due to her age. All four women had the same job title and
Premium Rite Aid J. C. Penney Discrimination