ruled that a Kentucky statute and the United States First Amendment did not authorize his refusal to identify his informers. When Branzburg appealed‚ the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition. This appeal was not the end of Branzburg’s case. A second case arose from a story published on January 10‚ 1971‚ and involved him describing details about the usage of drugs in Frankfort‚ Kentucky. In order for him to accurately report this story‚ he had to spend two weeks interviewing dozens of drug users
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Grand jury
Summarize the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts of Echazabal v. Chevron USA are as follows. Mr. Echnazabal had been working at Chevron USA refinery since 1972 till 1996 until the events presented in the case unfolded. He was employed by independent maintenance contractors for the refinery and worked in the coker unit of the refinery. In 1992‚ when a job opening was posted by Chevron in the same coker unit as that of where Mr. Echnazabal worked‚ he applied for the position to be directly
Premium Appeal Standard Oil Chevron Corporation
search a student while law enforcement officers must have probable cause. In the cases of Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding‚ the issues of search and seizure of a student in school are laid out in different scenarios that clearly portray the difference between a constitutional search and an unconstitutional search. The concept of reasonable suspicion is sufficient for the extended search in the Best V. New Jersey case because the student was in clear violation of school policy and the search was
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Police
Cipla v Roche – Generics Industry Rejoices! For the last two years‚ the Delhi High Court has been the battle ground for a pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla over Roche’s patent for the anticancer drug ‘erlotinib’‚ sold by Roche as ’Tarceva’. On 24 April 2009‚ the Division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing‚ offering for sale‚ selling and exporting its generic version of ‘erlotinib’
Premium Patent application Patent Patentability
official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See‚ e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 334
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Executive Summary This executive summary is meant to provide Ms. Becky Martins with the results of our analysis of the production planning issues Bells Home Appliances‚ Inc. is currently dealing with. As stated in the exercise notes‚ Bells is currently undergoing some challenges with regards to their production planning and operations and is attempting to stream line to achieve the most cost effective and timely production schedule possible. We analyzed many different options when trying
Premium Cost Costs Outsourcing
Dye 04/03/2015 CJAD 405 MADDOX V. MONTGOMERY United States Courts of Appeals‚ Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Facts: Jimmy Maddox was sentenced to serve a life of imprisonment after he was convicted in a Georgia State court for charges of rape. Maddox filed for a federal Habeas corpus petition after being unsuccessful at a direct appeal for his charges. His reason behind filing the federal habeas corpus was for the court violating the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland for alleging prosecutorial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus Appeal
Running Head: Home Depot v/s Lowe ’s A Term Project Presented to Dr. Anthony Woods (Instructor) Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements of ECON 5020 Abstract This paper gives the reader an insight into how a manager in a competitive industry in a two-firm constant sum game makes decisions. The writer will be playing the role of a Home Depot‚ Inc. manager‚ and the major competitor is Lowe’s‚ Inc. Home Depot is the largest United States (U.S.) home-improvement retailer while
Premium Stock market Stock New York Stock Exchange
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law