The Kids". Mcgraw lost to Benjamin in November 2004. When the case came before the West Virginia Supreme Court in 2007 the court ruled in favor of Massey and overturned the $50 million verdict in a split 3 to 2 decision. Caperton sought rehearing and the parties moved for disqualification of three of the five justices who decided the appeal. Photos had surfaced of Justice Spike Maynard vacationing in the French Riviera while the case was pending. Justice Maynard recused himself after possible bias
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
Jefferson‚ refused to deliver at least five of the commissions. William Marbury and three others were denied their commissions and therefore went directly to the Supreme Court and asked it to issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury thought he could take his case directly to the court because section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act gave the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus to anyone holding federal office. Issues: Does Marbury have a right to the commission? Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? Does
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison Law
3. Issue: Is the “Choose Life” license plate viewpoint discrimination‚ which is determined by whether the content is private speech or government speech? 4. Rule: The rule used‚ as outlined by the presiding judge‚ is a control test from a case in the 4th Circuit‚ Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Comm’r of the Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles: (1) the central purpose of the program in which the speech in question occurs; (2) the degree of editorial control exercised by the government or private
Premium United States North Carolina South Carolina
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
state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial”. Mapp’s appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari. 3. Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of appeals on three constitutional grounds. I. Expectation of privacy II. Unlawful search and seizures III. Illegally obtained evidence 4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp‚ ruling that the evidence found and used
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
second degree murder‚ however he was sentenced to just a single year in jail instead of the minimum required ten under the Criminal Code‚ since in the conditions of the case 10 years was seen as cruel and unusual. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later expanded the sentence to 10 years. Mr. Latimer in the end advanced the case to the Supreme Court‚ contending that the sentence was too long as well as that the trial was uncalled for in light of the fact that the judge chose the guard of need
Premium English-language films Family American films
defamed because the respondent called him a "flagrant opportunist who barely knew Jerry (Seinfeld) less than a year." The respondent felt he did no wrong‚ because the petitioner waived any claim because he appeared on the show. Disposition: The case was dismissed due to the state of New York not having a common-law claim for invasion of privacy. Also‚ the plaintiff’s claim for violation of civil rights law 50 and 51 was dismissed because the plaintiff’s name and likeness was not up for trade or
Premium Jerry Seinfeld George Costanza Comedy
county court and court of appeal upheld the verdict Issue: The issue at hand with this case is whether S. 234.1 (2) of the criminal code infringed on the Canadian Bill of Rights & whether the random stopping of motor vehicles by poilice infringed on S. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Laws: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Highway Traffic Act Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act Analysis: This case was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada‚ after a failed appeal in the Court of Appeal
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Stronger with Gold’s Gym in the Corporate World Case Introduction Gold’s Gym Internationally1 As of its establishment in 2002‚ Gold’s Gym has expanded its fitness profile by offering the best equipment and services including‚ Jukari Fit to Flexworkout‚ Zumba‚ Les Mills Body Combat personal training‚ spinning‚ sports conditioning‚ kid’s fitness‚ Pilates and yoga‚ while main taining its core weight lifting tradition. It is also the preferred
Premium