Case: Brandenburg V. Ohio Year: 1969 Facts: Clarence Brandenburg‚ a leader of an Ohio affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan‚ asked a reported to attend a KKK rally and cover the event. The reporter attended with a camera crew and filmed the rally that took place. Twelve white hooded figures‚ including that of Brandenburg’s‚ were seen with a wooden cross that was burned‚ and Brandenburg the said‚ “We’re not an revengent organization‚ but if our President‚ our Congress‚ and our Supreme Court‚ continues to
Premium United States Ku Klux Klan Southern United States
offensively‚ involving actual or perceived race‚ color‚ religion‚ gender identity‚ or national origin. Through the critical analysis of Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ it argues that an important element which is that the First Amendment does not protect violence. It enhances the maximum penalty for act motivated by a discriminatory point of view. IRAC Analysis Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ 508 U.S. 476 (1993) Fact: A young black man his name is Mitchell‚ and a group of his friends beat up a withe boy in Wisconsin. Mitchell
Premium
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
CASE: EEOC v. Target 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21483 7th Circuit Facts of the Case: In early 2000‚ an African-American name James Daniel‚ Jr applied for an Executive Team Leader position with Target. He was given tests‚ which he passed placing him in a very high percentile of those who have been previously tested. Unfortunately he was not hired‚ and was given the explanation of not meeting the requirements of the position. Daniels did not receive any feedback as to what requirement he was meeting
Premium United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Appeal
I have gone through all the assigned cases and I must admit it constituted one of the most challenging I have read thus far. Most of the legal jargons are notoriously difficult to comprehend. However‚ I braved the terms and what not coupled with patience and I did find a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. Among the three cases‚ I find King v. Burwell case interesting‚ in a sense‚ for the reason that the arguments raised in the case were about the subsidies for The Patient Protection and Affordable
Premium Health care Medicine Health economics
Carhart case in 2007 was significant to the way abortions were to be performed. The case established the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which banned D&E procedures and regulated abortions. The procedure was the dilatation of a woman’s cervix followed by the extraction of an unborn baby. (Kennedy 1)
Premium Human rights Pregnancy Abortion
Plyler v. Doe was one of many legal cases we talked about over the course of this semester in our SEI class. This case was the most interesting to me and so I thought I would share my knoedlge on this court case. This court case was brought to the suprieme court where the defendant was Plyler and the plaintiff was Doe. The Doe family was of Mexican orgin and were from Texas. The definedants argued that undoumented children were not “persons” and this was very alarming to me! The state was denying
Premium United States Education Immigration to the United States
The following case being summarized‚ R. v. Labaye is about a brothel that was in operation in Montreal called “L’Orage” in which was viewed by some members of the community a as a “bawdy house” which is an archaic term used to describe a setting in which individuals can partake in consensual acts of group sex and masturbation. The actions and activities that members of this club were involved in were done in a safe setting in which everything was done consensually. Due to the objective nature of
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Jury
Case Study: Kim v. Son To summarize the case of Kim v. Son‚ Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations‚ which eventually failed‚ and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad‚ he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood‚ stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out‚ when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim‚ so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge
Premium Common law Contract Law
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law