group of parents called the Parents of New York United or for short “PONYU”(2001) formed a group to try and get a list of nine books banned from the school’s library. According to the article Island Trees Union Free School District Board of Education v. Pico 1982‚ some of the books that were banned were Slaughterhouse Five and Best Short Stories of Negro Writers.(2001) The reason why these specific titles were banned is because the books contained graphic descriptions of sexual actions. The student
Premium High school Censorship Middle school
business by denying remedy for losses occasioned by the default of the defendant. Ferrell v. Elrod 469 S.W. 2d at 686 ...for fiduciary relationship The courts have determined that a “fiduciary relationship exists when one imposes a special confidence in another‚ so that the latter‚ in equity and good conscience‚ is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one imposing the confidence. Seybert v. Cominco Alaska Exploration‚ 182 P .3d 1079 (Alaska 2008) Argument I. Summary of Argument
Premium Law Court Supreme Court of the United States
Unit 9 Settlement Letter Final Draft James Draper Legal Writing PA105-01 Professor: Brian Tippens J.D. Law firm of: Chase‚ DiLiver and Billum‚ 456 Main Street‚ Plainview‚ GK‚ 12345 10/31/2010 To: Whack‚ Raze and Runn‚ Attorneys for Sunny Dale Gardens 123 Central Avenue‚ Plainview‚ GK‚ 23456 Attn: Richard Whack Esq
Premium Civil procedure Law Appeal
Pico v. Board of Educationn The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Board of Education v. Pico discussed the issue of whether the school’s board acted morally. The school board decided to remove nine books that they deemed to be anti-American‚ anti-Christian‚ anti-Semitic‚ and just plain filthy. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the school board had valid reasons to remove these books from the school’s library. The books weren’t required readings and were optional information for the students
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
allegedly taken from Spencer was simple documents which included some forms. These forms were not considered to be proprietary and/or controlled and therefore the confidentiality agreement was informational only. The case of Hauck Mfg. Co. (Hauck) v. Astec Industries Incorporated (Astec) is also a case that would support Giere. This case focuses on supposed confidential information that was exchanged for the development of burners used specifically for these businesses. The problem with this case
Premium Management Employment Project management
Words can influence‚ build‚ inspire or even demolish an individual. They are the most powerful weapon in the history of civilization‚ since they are capable of changing a person’s life for the better or even drive someone insane. In the play “Henry V” by William Shakespeare one can easily admire the power that words have on individuals through the famous king’s speeches. They inspire and even sometimes intimidate the audience. His speeches are also an essential part of the play‚ without them England
Premium William Shakespeare Macbeth Duncan I of Scotland
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
Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966 Michalle Cochrane(Wilborn)‚ Stephanie Cox‚ Shereka White and Vanetia Riley CJA 364 June 10‚ 2013 Jonathan Sperling Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966 In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court‚ in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Case: Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 Two shareholders of a company brought action against directors of the company for misapplication and improper use of the company’s property. The court held that as the injury complained of was injury to the company and not to the members. As such the members could not take action. Only the company had the right to sue. Case:In the case of Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd. (1967) QdR 561; The company had a husband and a wife as its only shareholders
Premium Death Share Life