The case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier is a very interesting case because it requires the courts to balance two very important values of American society‚ freedom of speech and education. Many Americans have made countless sacrifices to ensure that we can enjoy both freedom of speech and one of the best education systems in the world. Due to the fact that these values are so important to the American people‚ it is no surprise that the decision had to be ultimately made by the Supreme Court of the United
Premium Education High school School
Business Law Kikuchi‚ Nikka Lei N. October 14‚ 2014 Cuadra v. Monfort Case Digest Statement of the facts: I. Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were classmates in Grade Six at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9‚ 1962 their teacher assigned them‚ together with three other classmates‚ to weed the grass in the school premises. While thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband‚ an ornamental object commonly worn by young girls
Free Logic Parent Mother
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ The PICO (patient‚ intervention‚ comparison and outcome) question format is an extensively used strategy when developing a case study question (Aslam‚ 2010). The use of this format in evidence-based practise allows for the formulation of interesting and clinically significant research questions. The question format aims to cover all areas of research‚ patient refers to the demographic to be addressed by the research; the intervention
Premium Diabetes mellitus Pregnancy Childbirth
GONZALES V. RAICH‚ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222 Facts: Respondents contended that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted physicians‚ patients and care givers from criminal prosecution and allowed for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes with the recommendation and approval of a physician. Respondents who suffered from medical conditions sought to avail themselves of this exemption. Because the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted under the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress
In the case of Snyder V. Phelps‚ in which the Westboro Baptist Church has been for many years picketing military funerals‚ rights protect the church’s freedom of speech‚ and the freedom of assembly. Although the Supreme Court is basing the decision off of the first amendment right of freedom of speech‚ not only can this case be based on freedom of speech but also the citizens right of assembly. The church believes that American soldier’s deaths should be blamed on the fact that the United States
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
In the case of Smith v. United States‚ the plaintiff‚ John Angus Smith‚ was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking‚ which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1)‚ the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence‚ and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning
Premium Firearm Crime Gun
Obergefell V. Hodges is a Supreme court case that sanctioned same-sex marriage in each of the 50 states. The case occurred when a man named James Obergefell sued his home state Ohio to tell the general population of Ohio how the forbidding of gay marriage wasn’t right and an infringement of his rights as a citizen. Certain rights are counted in the Constitution. Different rights are not identified in the Constitution but rather are seemingly suggested inside its dialect. Most rights ascending by
Premium
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
Charter Case Analysis: Vriend v. Alberta 1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual. 2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA. 3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated
Premium
STATE v. PRANKCUS Facts: Judd approached the defendant in an attempt to calm him. The defendant then punched Judd in the face. A brief fight ensured between Judd and the defendant during which a shelf with ceramic mugs fell on the floor and shattered. Doucette‚ Anderson and Potkaj attempted to break up the fight. Anderson and Potkaj grabbed Judd by his arms to restrain him while Doucette came up behind the defendant and wrapped his arms around him to stop the fight. The defendant broke free from
Premium Jury Judge Court