Florida V/S Indiana I was raised in Indiana and have lived here my entire life. While on vacation in Florida one year‚ my husband introduced the idea of us relocating to Florida to live permanently. This was not a decision to take lightly. I had to do some research into the idea of living in Florida as opposed to living in Indiana where I grew up. It is very beautiful there and sure I love visiting Florida for vacation and I never want to leave‚ but we need to decide if we want to live there
Premium United States Census Bureau Winter Florida
employer must have ‘strong basis in evidence‚’ that will be subject to ‘disparate impact liability’ if it fails to take discriminatory action.” Similar to City of Richmond v. Croson‚ the court declared there was not sufficient evidence to require special actions to be taken to fight
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Reverse discrimination United States Constitution
active role in overseeing food processing businesses within their respective states‚ but their role is in collaboration with the federal agencies”.1 Fortunately‚ there was no mention of any issues that Campbell’s has encountered regarding their manufacturing operations. However‚ they have run into some ethical issues regarding the methods used by the companies that they employed to do their marketing research. Campbell’s hired three different marketing research companies. The first was Innerscope Research
Premium Food processing Food industry Food
Year 12 Legal Studies Crime Assessment Steven Fraser - R v Fraser - Murder of children Legal Citation: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965 and R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53 Elements of the Offence: Steven Fraser murdered his three children – Ashley (7)‚ Ryan (5)‚ and Jarrod (4) – on the weekend of the 18 – 19 August‚ 2001. They were staying in his Caringbah apartment on a custody visit‚ where Steven was living after separating with his wife Maria Chona two months prior. Ryan and Jarrod were given doses
Premium Murder Crime Capital punishment
Case: Brandenburg V. Ohio Year: 1969 Facts: Clarence Brandenburg‚ a leader of an Ohio affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan‚ asked a reported to attend a KKK rally and cover the event. The reporter attended with a camera crew and filmed the rally that took place. Twelve white hooded figures‚ including that of Brandenburg’s‚ were seen with a wooden cross that was burned‚ and Brandenburg the said‚ “We’re not an revengent organization‚ but if our President‚ our Congress‚ and our Supreme Court‚ continues to
Premium United States Ku Klux Klan Southern United States
Specht v. Netscape Communication Corporation‚ 306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002). I. FACTS Plaintiffs sued‚ Netscape‚ a software internet company who distributed the free software SmartDownload‚ for electronic eavesdropping. The Plaintiffs alleged Defendant violated two federal statutes‚ the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act‚ by capturing private information about files downloaded from the Internet . Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in District Court
Premium Law Civil procedure Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Clements v Clements case. This case is of great significance which revolves around a severe motorcycle accident that took place from 2009 to 2012‚ which resulted in the plaintiff‚ Mrs Clements suffering severe traumatic injuries. The verdict still remains undecided in the Supreme Court of Canada based on the improper use of the But For Test and The Material Contributions Test. The abundance of information presented in the three court systems depict why is why it is such a difficult case to solve
Premium Law Jury Crime
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
Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Facts: Lucy made an offer to Zehmer one night while at his restaurant to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50‚000. Zehmer and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Zehmer would sell the farm to Lucy. Zehmer claimed later that the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both drinking at Zehmer’s restaurant and that he only meant the acceptance as a joke. Zehmer didn’t believe that Lucy’s offer was genuine since they were both drinking and went along with
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
The landmark case that opened up the ability for business to operate across state lines was Gibbons v. Ogden. The case started in 1809‚ when the Legislature of the State of New York granted exclusive navigation privileges of all boats that moved by fire or stream in the waters within the jurisdiction of the state‚ for twenty years‚ to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton (Livingston). They wanted a monopoly on a national network of steamboat lines‚ but were unsuccessful in their pursuit. Only
Premium United States United States Constitution Thomas Jefferson