McCray Nature of the Case: Appeal upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Concise Rule of Law: Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 which permits persons who appear to be mentally ill and acting in a manner that threatens safety of self or others to be taken into custody. The Penal Law § 120.08 imposes strict liability with respect to the serious injury aspect of a crime. Facts of the Case: In August 2008‚ McCray
Premium Crime Law Mental disorder
United States V McClatchey 217 F3d 823 Cir.‚ (10th ‚ 2000) I. Background This case of U.S government versus defendant McClatchey involves hospital CEO‚ two physicians‚ and Mr. McClatchy who is a part of the administrative staff at Baptist Medical center. Two physicians involved in the case worked together in a group practice called BVMG that provided care to the nursing homes. In 1984‚ they brought a proposal to the Baptist Medical Center to have them buy the practice and in return physicians
Premium Jury Physician
citation number: [2015] UKSC 34 Haile (Appelant) v London Borough of Waltham Forest (Resppondent) On appeal from : [2014] EWCA Civ 792 Judgement date: 20 May 2015 Hearing date: 29 January 2015 Case summary: Justices: Lord Neuberger‚ Lady Hale‚ Lord Clarke‚ Lord Reed‚ Lord Carnwath Nature of the case: causational‚ intentional homelessness Facts: On 25 October 2011 the appellant voluntarily surrendered her tenancy in a hostel because of an unpleasant smell and moved for a temporary accommodation
Premium Family Law Pregnancy
Case Title: Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Citation: [2003] UKHL 50 Procedural History (PH): The appellants were charged on 22nd August 2000; without lawful excuse damaged by fire; commercial premises and being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The appellants stood trial before Judge Maher in March 2001. The appellants’ case at trial was that they expected the fire to extinguish itself on the concrete
Premium Mind Criminal law Mens rea
ensuring that you have an awareness of particular concepts‚ theories and principles‚ and that you are able to apply this material to marketing issues and problems that will arise from your workshop activities. The workshops will utilise formal input‚ case studies‚ journal and newspaper articles‚ and group discussions. The directed reading you will undertake will provide you firstly with a framework within which you can understand the appropriateness and validity of the workshop activities‚ and secondly
Premium Marketing
Apple vs. Samsung Apple and Samsung are the world’s two largest high-end mobile providers. Apple and Samsung are major competitors but are also business partners. Apple is one of Samsung’s biggest phone component customers and Samsung is one of Apple’s biggest suppliers. According to Bloomberg’s supply chain analysis‚ Apple accounts for 9% of Samsung’s revenue‚ which makes Apple Samsung’s largest costumer. Despite the companies’ business relationship‚ in April of 2011 Apple sued Samsung for
Premium Appeal Barack Obama United States
CIS 8060 Case Brief Grade Assessment Group Number/Name: The A-team Student Names: Paul Tran‚ Sukumar Pant‚ Vaibhav Choudhary Criteria Score and Comments Identifying Problems & Issues [15 points] • Use of case facts to diagnose core problems and issues • Effectiveness in framing the problem & issues Analysis of Issues [50 points] • Meaningful criteria identified for the analysis of problems and issues • Effective use of case data • Application of concepts and theories • Insightful
Premium Critical thinking Scientific method Logic
Name of Case in Proper Legal Citation Format Jones v. Star Credit Corp 59 Misc.2d 189 (1969) Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer‚ company‚ employee‚ government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking? Plaintiffs who are welfare recipients agreed to purchase a freezer for $900‚ and purchase price came out to be $1234.80 with all the other added taxes. So far the plaintiffs have paid $619.88‚ however the freezer is only worth about $300. What legal question
Premium Common law Contract Law
United States v. Jones‚ United States Supreme Court (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945 Facts of the Case Respondent Jones was a subject of a Government investigation in part of a much larger drug trafficking conspiracy. As part of the investigation‚ FBI agents had obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by Jones – a Jeep registered to Jone’s wife. The court order was issued in the District of Columbia and was set to expire 10 days after it was signed by the judge. On Day
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Citation: Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition‚ 535 U.S. 232 (2002) Parties: John D. Ashcroft‚ Attorney General‚ and the Government of the United States‚ Petitioners The Free Speech Coalition‚ Respondents Facts: In 1996 Congress passed the federal Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) which extended federal prohibition against child pornography to sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors but that were actually produced without using real children. The CPPA statute in
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States