MBA560 COUGHLIN v TAILHOOK 112 F.3d 1052 (1997) United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Circuit Facts: During a convention at the Las Vegas Hilton in September 1991‚ Navy Lieutenant Paula Coughlin was attacked by a group of men in a hotel hallway. The resulting post-traumatic stress disorder and other problems related to the attack eventually hampered her ability to perform her duties. Ultimately‚ she resigned from the US Navy. Coughlin brought action against the Hilton Hotels Corporation
Premium Tort Jury Nevada
The Kent v. United States Should teens be tried as adults? Furthermore‚ would it stop teens from committing a crime if they were thrown in adult institutions? There are teens who commit crimes that could be judged as adults “On September 2‚ 1961‚ an intruder entered the apartment of a woman in the District of Columbia. He took her wallet. He raped her‚ the police found in the apartment latent finger prints. They matched the fingerprints of Morris Kent” (Kent). Morris is one of those teens. This
Premium Crime Criminology United States
In the case of Mempa v. Rhay‚ which the accused pleaded guilty with the advice of court-appointed counsel to the crime of "joyriding" and was placed on probation for two years. Then soon after the sentence was deferred because he was involved in a burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison but only would receive 1 year with the advice from the parole. This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus
recognized that those inmates do have less rights than free citizens. Taking away some rights of the inmates is a valid punishment and by restricting these rights it helps in maintaining security in prisons. The title of the case that I chose was Wolff v. McDonnell. This case was very important because it uniformed certain rights and freedoms within correctional facilities. “Although inmates received some procedural safe-guards to protect them against the notorious abuses of disciplinary meetings‚ they
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Law United States Constitution
has been the state legislature’s responsibility to establish‚ implement and regulate the medical tort system and laws and guidelines related to them (Conover‚ Zeitler‚ p.1). There is‚ however‚ a potential hazard of the judiciary getting involved in establishing medical standards of care based on facts of a single case rather than on the standards of the profession (King‚ p.1236-37). In a sense‚ the issue is approached from a semantic and factual rather than medical standpoint. Helling v. Carey is a
Premium Physician Medicine Supreme Court of the United States
Plaintiffs-Appellants‚ v. PAUL KLINKE; CAROL KLINKE; GREG KLINKE; GRANNY’S BUFFET‚ INC.‚ a Washington corporation; and MARK MILLER‚ Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-36222 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 73 F.3d 965; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 436; 37 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1449; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 315; 96 Daily Journal DAR 507 December 7‚ 1995‚ Argued and Submitted‚ Seattle‚ Washington January 16‚ 1996‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court
Premium Secrecy
October 31‚ 1963‚ Detective Martin McFadden was in plain clothes‚ patrolling his downtown beat in Cleveland‚ Ohio‚ an area that he had been patrolling for shoplifters and pick-pocketing the last 30 years. At 2:30 PM‚ he noticed two unknown individuals‚ John Terry and Richard Chilton acting suspiciously‚ standing on a street corner. One of the men walked away and stopped to look in a nearby store window‚ continued walking‚ and on the way back stopped to look in the same store window before rejoining the
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
U On May 15‚ 2000‚ the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. The holding of this case and the unconstitutionality eventually resulted in the “freedom” of Antonio J. Morrison‚ who evaded charges under the act that would provide a victim‚ Christy Brzonkala‚ of gender-motivated violence a cause of action against the perpetrator for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. This
Premium United States Congress Commerce Clause Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States
Henry V and Machiavelli are different in many ways. The main reason why they are different is because they are the leaders from different epochs. Henry V is a leader from medieval times. Machiavelli “The Prince” is a leader from renaissance times. These leaders have different thoughts of a lot of things. For example‚ religion and government but if you really think about they could have the same views. Let’s further on your knowledge this both incredible leaders. To begin‚ Henry V is represented
Premium Political philosophy