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
allowing Turner to continue to work as a shaker table inspector. When analyzing this case‚ Turner’s medical problems appeared to be limited to her job as a shaker table inspector. She was a qualified individual for the job and received several accommodations under the ADA‚ but her medical problems did not limit any major life sustaining activities. She had difficulty with very few activities. As stated in the case‚ “the activities in which she can participate in are limited and do not require any
Premium Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Disability United States
Case Study: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Joshua Weisman Webster University HRMG 5700 QD F2 In the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc.‚ Joseph Oncale was the victim of repeated harassment‚ sexual‚ physical and mental‚ from at least three members of the work crew‚ of which two had a supervisory position over him. When Oncale brought his complaints to the supervisors‚ they took no noticeable actions against the harassers and‚ after he had experienced
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Pleading Court
7-Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 (CCP) Summary: • “For a contract to come into existence‚ the offeree had to communicate his acceptance of the relevant offer to the offeror.” • This means that for a contract to come into play it has to be a bilateral agreement. One party cannot decide to enter someone else in a contract. Also‚ the case implies that changes in a contract nullify prior acceptances- if the contract changes‚ you need to agree the terms again. The Case: • F[elthouse]
Premium Contract
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
employee unreasonably failed to avoid the harm‚ the employer will be liable” (EEOC‚ 1999). 2. The cases Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to the current case because of many reasons. In Ellerth‚ “the Court concluded that there was no tangible
Premium Employment Law Tort law
Legal Brief: Doe v. Withers Liability within the Educational System EDED 6312 School Law Dr. Jones Dallas Baptist University Spring 2012 Name of Case: Doe v. Withers Civil Action Number: 92-C-92 Subject: Liability The Facts: This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County‚ when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended
Premium Special education Teacher Education
Law Brief Assignment Case: Fans v. New York Highlanders Inc. Facts: The New York Highlanders are building a new stadium‚ offered a first come first serve season ticket special. In order to be eligible‚ buyers would have to pay a $10‚000 licensing fee which would guarantee a specific seat as identified in a stadium seating diagram. About 10‚000 fans signed up and sent in their seating choices at the 50 yard line (the most desired seats) and received confirmation from the Highlanders that their seats
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson‚ 477 US 57 (1986) Facts: After being terminated a female bank employee filed an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ 42 U.S.C.S. §2000e et seq.‚ claiming that she had been sexually harassed by her male supervisor. The US Supreme Court ruled that if the actions of the supervisor were unwelcome‚ than the respondent had a claim for sexual harassment on the basis of a hostile work environment‚ even if the sexual acts were voluntary. Issues: (1) Whether
Premium Sexual harassment United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Illinois‚ Supra and United States v. Di Re‚ 332 U.S. 581 (1948). In Ybarra‚ police officers obtained a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance. Not only did the police search the tavern and the bartender but all the patrons that
Premium Police Crime Police brutality