Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Legal Brief: Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders Facts: • Pennsylvania State Police hired Nancy Drew Suders as a police communications operator. • Suder’s supervisors were Sergeant Eric D. Easton‚ Patrol Corporal William D. Baker‚ and Corporal Eric B. Prendergast. • Suders was subject to sexual harassment from all three of her supervisors during the term of her employment. • Easton would mention the subject of people having sex with animals each time Suders entered the office. • Easton told
Premium Employment Termination of employment Supreme Court of the United States
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court
Citation Eisner v. Macomber‚3 AFTR 3020‚ 252 US 189‚1 USTC ¶32 (US‚ 1920) Issue (1) Under the 16th Amendment‚ does Congress have the power to tax stock dividends received by the Macomber? (2) Are stock dividends considered income? Facts Mrs. Macomber owned 2‚200 shares of Standard Oil Company. In January 1916‚ Standard Oil Company declared a 50% stock dividend. Mrs. Macomber received an additional 1‚100 shares of stock with a $19‚877 par value. The shares represented a surplus for Standard
Premium Stock market Stock Supreme Court of the United States
Case Brief Saenz v Roe (1999) 1. Facts The facts of the Saenz V Roe case is that in 1992 the state of California wanted to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program by setting a limit to new residents. By having this approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and having the Federal District Court implement it‚ there would a large number of new residents who would be treated unequally. By the time it became into law on April 1‚ 1997 a class action was filed to challenge
Premium United States Law Supreme Court of the United States
STATE v. PRANKCUS Facts: Judd approached the defendant in an attempt to calm him. The defendant then punched Judd in the face. A brief fight ensured between Judd and the defendant during which a shelf with ceramic mugs fell on the floor and shattered. Doucette‚ Anderson and Potkaj attempted to break up the fight. Anderson and Potkaj grabbed Judd by his arms to restrain him while Doucette came up behind the defendant and wrapped his arms around him to stop the fight. The defendant broke free from
Premium Jury Judge Court
In the case of State v. Rounds‚ the defense challenges the conduct of Officer Oliver Towns and the evidence his conduct yielded. The defense wages their action on three major cases‚ all of which apply‚ but none in the way cited: Riley V. California‚ 573 U.S. ____ (2014)‚ Wong Sun v. United States‚ 371 U.S. 471‚ (1963) and Carroll v United States‚ 267 U.S. 132 (1925). This case can be narrowed down to three stages: the stop‚ the search and the seizure. All of which‚ when performed‚ obeyed the limits
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
Case Brief Summary: Marbury v. Madison Robert L. Broadwater PAD 525 Strayer University Dr. O’Neal July 09‚ 2012 Summary of Marbury v. Madison‚ 5 U.S. 137‚ 1 Cranch 137‚ 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Facts The incumbent president Federalist John Adams was defeat in the presidential election by Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. The day before leaving office‚ President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. This was
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
Case of Braswell v. United States Team A Bridget Sarris‚ Bonnie Kyle‚ Erlyn Cruz‚ Ernest Snyder LAW / 421 Robert Tisher May 27‚ 2013 BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not. From 1965 to 1980‚ petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises
Premium Legal entities Supreme Court of the United States Business law