I. Katz v. U.S. 347 (1967) II. Procedural History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. III. Facts: The petitioner‚ Charles Katz‚ was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. In order to collect evidence against Katz‚ federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Missouri v. McNeely (2012) I. Facts A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes‚ his slurred speech‚ and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests‚ and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing‚ the officer took him to a nearby hospital for
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NOTES OF CASES THECASEOF THE SLIPPERY EQUITY IN Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)‚’ Lord Denning M.R. said: “ (‘ Hard cases make bad law ’) is a maxim which is quite misleading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it.”a Now that it has been decided that there is to be no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal‚ it is worth
Premium Law Common law Criminal law
Maryland v. Pringle‚ 540 S. 366 (2003) Facts: A police Officer Snyder stopped a car for speeding on August 7‚ 1999 at 3:16 a.m. Partlow‚ the owner of the vehicle was driving the car‚ Pringle was the front seat passenger‚ and Smith was the back seat passenger. Officer Snyder asked Partlow for his driver’s license and the registration. When Partlow opened the glove box to grab his vehicle registration‚ Officer Snyder saw a large quantity of rolled up cash. After‚ checking Partlow’s license
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat
V For Vendetta – Great Film but C For Confusing… When I first saw the movie ‘V for Vendetta’ (2006 James McTeigue) I didn’t know anything about it at all. Despite the very complex and confusing story line though‚ it was a very enjoyable and engrossing film. This Sci-Fi Action film is set in the near future in London and is about a terrorist‚ V (Hugo Weaving)‚ who with the help of his friend Evey (Natalie Portman) plans to blow up Parliament‚ just like his hero‚ Guy Fawkes. V has many similarities
Premium V for Vendetta England
from decision of Lower Court1. In this case‚ Harvey is an appellant appealing to Privy Council. b) A respondent is a person against whom an action is raised. In this case‚ the respondent is Facey. c) The following is taken from the case of Harvey v Facey2. There was a dispute between the two parties over the sale of a property named Bumper Hall Pen. The appellants‚ Harvey and his wife‚ telegraphed Facey a message stating ‘’Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest price – answer paid.’’
Premium Contract
Same Script‚ Different Stories The play‚ Henry V is set in England. It is based around the battle of Agincourt. Olivier and Branagh both made film versions of this play which are completely different from each other. The portrayal of King Henry the V differed in ways that had to do with the time period in which the film was made‚ and also how the way theatrically the film was presented. Olivier had a glamorous‚ heroic‚ and positive attitude towards war. In this film‚ King Henry is seen as a
Premium Globe Theatre William Shakespeare World War II
infliction of the death penalty is constitutionally impermissible in all circumstances under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their case is a strong one. But I find it unnecessary to reach the ultimate question they would decide. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority‚ 297 U.S. 288‚ 347 (Brandeis‚ J.‚ concurring). The opinions of other Justices today have set out in admirable and thorough detail the origins and judicial history of the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against the infliction
Free Capital punishment Prison Crime
Case Name‚ Citation and Court Hampton v. Federal Express Corporation‚ 917 F.2d 1119 (8th Cir. 1990) 2. Key Facts a. Carl Gerome Hampton was a thirteen year old boy that was diagnosed with cancer and needed a blood transplant. b. Carl was a patient at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Omaha‚ Nebraska. This hospital sent five samples of Carl’s blood to the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Iowa City so they could find a match between five other people for a bone marrow transplant. c. FedEx
Free Common law Law United States
Chapter/Case Questions: 1. Chapter 12‚ Yunker V. Honeywell‚ pg 456-459‚ Questions 1-4 1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra‚ 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra‚ 2011). The court meant that
Premium Employment