Hudson v. Michigan‚ 547 U.S. 586 (2006) Facts- Detroit police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of Booker Hudson. When police arrived to execute the warrant‚ they announced their presence but waited “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs‚ including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket and a loaded gun placed in between the cushion and armrest of a chair
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Commonwealth v Pestinakas 617 A.2d 1339 Facts: Joseph Kly met Walter and Helen Pestinikas in the latter part of 1981 when Kly consulted them about prearranging his funeral. In March‚ 1982‚ Kly‚ who had been living with a stepson‚ was hospitalized and diagnosed as suffering from Zenker’s diverticulum‚ a weakness in the walls of the esophagus‚ [***4] which caused him to have trouble swallowing food. In the hospital‚ Kly was
Premium Crime Death Contract
State v. McNeely 358 S.W.3d 65 MO. (2012) Facts: The defendant was stopped by a Missouri state highway patrolman for speeding and during this stop the trooper noticed that the defendant was displaying all the tell-tale signs of being intoxicated; blood shot eyes‚ slurred speech‚ and the smell of alcohol on his breath. This stop then changed from being a speeding stop to a DWI investigation. The trooper had the defendant get out of his truck and perform standard field sobriety tests. The defendant
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Blaustein V. Burto Brief Action: The plaintiff (Blaustein)‚ was looking to receive payment for the usage of his movie idea which resulted in the exhibition of a movie. Facts: Based on a movie idea‚ Mr. Blaustein the plaintiff‚ met with Hugh French‚ the agent for Richard Burton‚ Marting Gang‚ Mr. Burton’s Attorney‚ and Burton himself June 30th 1964. During that meeting‚ Mr. Blaustein pitched his idea to develop a movie based on Shakespeare’s play The Taming of the Shrew. He went into detailed
Premium Contract
collect money owed from Ms. Wright for a leased car‚ which had been repossessed by the lessor‚ Mr. Kehoe called her employer and made false statements about her. The evidence presented to the jury found that on November 18‚ 2005‚ Mr. Kehoe phoned the bank that Ms. Wright worked at‚ as a float officer and posed as a lawyer. He communicated with the respondent’s manager and asked for a confirmation of her address. He also stated that the court had ordered garnishment of Ms. Wright’s wages and she needed
Premium Jury Law Tort
Case Brief LAW/531 October 26‚ 2011 Facts In the case Zehmer v. Lucy‚ Zehmer created an agreement that Lucy would sell his farm for 50‚000 dollars. While at the bar drinking Zehmer had his wife sign the contract. Lucy tried to close the deal with a five dollar deposit and Zehmer refused it stating the contract was a joke. Lucy is suing Zehmer for breach of contract. Issues Is the contract between Zehmer and Lucy valid
Premium Contract
CASE BRIEF Case: State of Missouri v. David R. Bullock‚ 03CR679889.MO‚ [www.courts.mo.gov/casenet] Facts: At the time of the filing of his appeal‚ Mr. David R. Bullock had been charged and convicted of attempted statutory rape (under RSMO 566.032 and 564.011) and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor (under RSMO 564.011 and RSMO 566.032). David R. Bullock engaged in several conversations via email and chat rooms with a Newton County Deputy Sheriff who was conducting a sting operation
Premium Appeal Law
“Project Financing - Banks Vs NBFCs” A Functional report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Bachelor Of Finance And Investment Analysis BY SARTHAK KAUSHAL (A3110108010) Under the guidance of Ms. SHRADDHA SHARMA [pic] AMITY COLLEGE OF COMMERECE AND FINANCE AMITY UNIVERSTIY NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH DECLARATION I‚ SARTHAK KAUSHAL ‚ hereby declare that the following project report titled “Project Financing
Premium Bank Finance
HELMER et al. v. RUMARSON TECHNOLOGIES‚ INC. (two cases) Court of Appeals of Georgia‚ 2000. 245 Ga. App. 598‚ 538 S.E.2d 504 FACTS Rumarson Technologies‚ Inc. (RTI) sued Robert and Percy Helmer to collect from them personally $24‚965 owed to it by Event Marketing‚ Inc. (EMI) when EMI’s check to pay RTI bounced. Robert and Percy Helmer were authorized signatories on EMI’s corporate account‚ and they signed the check. RTI argued that as signatories they could be held personally liable. The lower
Premium Appeal Cheque Court
CASE BRIEF Title of Case: Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ Petitioner v. Scientific-Atlanta‚ Inc.‚ et al. 128 S. Ct. 761 (2008) Facts: The plaintiff‚ Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ presented a securities fraud class action against the defendant‚ Charter Communications’ vendors‚ Scientific-Atlanta. Charter communications is a publicly traded cable company that services millions of customers throughout America. Charter contracts with vendors for equipment that is used for their company
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal