1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
States’ Rights v. Nationalism The debate over states’ rights versus nationalism relates to the current political actors‚ issues‚ and conflicts; as can be seen through examination of William Jefferson Clinton‚ the issue of federal funding for public schools‚ and the conflict between the states and the Constitution over the "Full faith and credit" clause and whether it pertains to same-sex marriages. William Jefferson Clinton was recently in Norfolk‚ Virginia to promote what he believes will occur
Premium United States United States Constitution President of the United States
Braswell v. United States Introduction The Fifth Amendment of US Constitution provides a significant protection for accused persons. In particular‚ the Fifth Amendment provides guarantees for due process‚ protection against double jeopardy and against the self-incrimination. My paper focuses on the guarantee against the self-incrimination. Thus‚ the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. At the same time‚ it is not specified
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
Baig v Harvie 2016 SLT 67; 2016 SCL 108 On January the 31st 2014 the appellant in this case – Baig‚ accompanied by his brother‚ had confrontation with two parking attendants after they had issued a penalty charge notice on the appellant’s car. This was issued as the car was parked in a restricted parking section and the appropriate parking permit was not displayed. ‘The appellant and his brother returned to confront Mr Brown. The appellant was verbally abusive. He was confrontational. He was aggressive
Premium Law Jury Court
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Judy Sal DATE November 11‚ 2011 Costanza v. Seinfield 181 Misc. 2d 562; 693 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1999) Parties: Petitioner: Costanza Respondent: Seinfield Facts: The plaintiff‚ Michael Costanza alleges that the television show‚ “Seinfield” has a character by the name of George Costanza who is based off of him without his consent. The character is bald‚ fat‚ has bad romantic relationships‚ and poor employment. Plaintiff alleges that “Seinfield” has portrayed him in a negative‚ humiliating
Premium Jerry Seinfeld George Costanza Comedy
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
Jacobson v. United States Supreme Court of the United States 1992. 503 U.S. 540‚ 112 S.Ct. 1535. FACTS= On September 24‚ 1987‚ Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984‚ which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a "visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct." On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys
Premium United States Law Jury