Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous‚ successful‚ and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Premium Contract Contract
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
1. Citation: United States v. Conti‚ E.D.S.C.‚ Western Division‚ No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts: In 2011‚ the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289‚ which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs‚ headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina‚ and the Defendants‚ Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson‚ who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation
Premium United States North Carolina South Carolina
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
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
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga Case Name: California v Hodari Citation: 499 U.S. 621 Date Decided: 1991 Area of Law: Fourth Amendment Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court‚ in which justice Rehnquist‚ CJ‚ joined and White‚ Blackmun‚ O’ Conner‚ Kennedy‚ and Souter‚ JJ‚ joined. Stevens‚ filed a dissenting opinion‚ in which Marshall‚ J.‚ joined Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Judy Sal DATE November 11‚ 2011 Costanza v. Seinfield 181 Misc. 2d 562; 693 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1999) Parties: Petitioner: Costanza Respondent: Seinfield Facts: The plaintiff‚ Michael Costanza alleges that the television show‚ “Seinfield” has a character by the name of George Costanza who is based off of him without his consent. The character is bald‚ fat‚ has bad romantic relationships‚ and poor employment. Plaintiff alleges that “Seinfield” has portrayed him in a negative‚ humiliating
Premium Jerry Seinfeld George Costanza Comedy