James Donalds – Case Brief Practice R. v. Sparrow‚ [1990] 1 SCR 1075 Facts: Sparrow was charged under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with the offence of fishing with a drift net longer than permitted by the terms of the Indian Food Fishing License. Sparrow admitted to committing the act‚ but claimed that he has the aboriginal right to fish under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act. Therefore‚ the Act is inconsistent with s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act‚ 1982 and is invalid. He was unsuccessful
Premium Law United Kingdom United States
People v. Rangel (2012) : Case Brief Issue: When a search warrant is issued on the grounds of proving someone to be a part of gang activity‚ is it logical to be able to search their personal items such as a phone? Facts: San Mateo police believed that supposed gang member Eric Rangel was responsible for the felony assault that took place in a local park and also that it was a gang-related crime. As a result police obtained a search warrant of Rangel’s home on the grounds of proving “gang indicia”
Premium Crime Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Law
Species from genus Vaccinum such as V. uliginosum‚ V. angistifolium‚ V. mystillus‚ V. macrocarpon Ait contains phytochemicals with antiproliferative activity against cancer cell lines. The first study based on anticancer activity from cranberry extracts published in 1996 where inhibition of polyamine synthesis and induction of expression of the enzyme quinone reductase shown (Bomser and others 1996). Subsequently‚ an extract containing hydrosoluble phenols from a comercial freeze-dried cranberry
Premium Cancer Bacteria Oncology
Background: Bob Ewell is the father of Mayella Ewell‚ the victim in the Ewell v. Robinson case. Mayella Ewell claims to have been beaten and raped by Negro‚ Tom Robinson. She claims she had him do work for her in the yard and when she went inside to get a nickel to pay him‚ he rushed her whilst her back was turned. She says she turned around and he took control of her and beat and took advantage of her. These claims were blatant lies. The Initial Injuries Sheriff Heck Tate was called up to the
Premium White people To Kill a Mockingbird Black people
CASE United States v. Nixon‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) FACTS A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Nixon’s White House staff members and political supporters of the President for violation of federal statutes in the Watergate affair‚. The President on the other hand was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure - Rule 17 for a subpoena duces tecum‚ a court summons ordering the President
Premium Richard Nixon Watergate scandal President of the United States
Park Min-jung (20080534) Fact : On June 9‚ 1974‚ Jerome Bourque(Plaintiff) was playing second base on a softball game. Duplechin(Defendant)‚ a member of the opposing team had hit the ball and advanced to first base. After his teammate hit the ball‚ to avoid double play Duplechin ran at full speed into Bourque. As Duplechin ran into Bourque‚ he brought his left arm up under Bourque’s chin. Plaintiff Bourque filed this suit to recover damages for personal injuries received in the collision.
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
two court cases were being held in the supreme court about cruel and unusual punishment. Ingraham Vs. Wright (1977) and Gregg Vs. Georgia (1976). I choose to compare these because they both favored common good instead of individual rights and had a lot of similar aspects of their trials. During these Supreme Court cases Gregg Vs. Georgia showed more balance between the promoting the common good and protecting the individual rights than Ingraham Vs. Wright showed in 1977. In the court case of Ingraham
Premium Capital punishment Murder Supreme Court of the United States
Leng Xiong Business Law Anderson September 11‚ 2013 Case Analysis #1 Austin V. Berryman Citation: Austin V. Berryman United States Supreme Court of Appeal‚ Fourth Circuit‚ 1989. Facts: Barbra Austin is challenging the Virginia Employment Commission for unemployment compensation benefits‚ which she chose to quit her job out of religious beliefs to fallow her spouse. Issue: She is claimed to be denied of her unemployment compensation benefits because she quilted due to her religious belief
Premium Faith United States Religion
time‚ various cases will be examined starting from the Ogden Vs. Gibbons case and their impact on the free market evaluated with key concern being emphasized on the role the congress played in ensuring that market equilibrium was achieved through supply and demand controls. The paper will also analyze various cases like the Wickard v. Filburn (1942)‚ United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)‚ NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)‚ Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig‚ Inc. (1935)‚ Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Premium United States Constitution Economics Supreme Court of the United States
ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution