U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 418 U.S. 683 UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES‚ ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 73-1766. Decided By: Burger Court (1972-1975) Argued July 8‚ 1974. Decided July 24‚ 1974. * Defending Attorney for the President: James D. St. Clair Prosecuting Attorney’s for the United States: Leon Jaworski & Philip A. Lacovara On
Premium Richard Nixon President of the United States Supreme Court of the United States
Directors who happen to work for more than forty hours in a week as demanded by law are entitled to compensation. This has to cover the amount of time and effort they have used to serve the organization or state agency to the best of their knowledge. Despite such directors being under the excluded job category‚ they still have to be paid for their services for having worked for extra hours. These directors‚ just like other categories of excluded employees are entitled to pay for having exceeded the
Premium Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Working time
Ochampaugh v. Seattle 588 P. 2d 1351 (Wash. 1979) Facts Ordinary pond owned by the city Popular with area residents for fishing and swimming The two boys were familiar with the pond and had gone there before. Neither boy could swim. There were no warning signs around the pond. The pond‚ while man-made‚ was in existence before the city purchased the land. Issue Was the pond a “trap” or extraordinarily dangerous enough to render it an “attractive nuisance” to children and thus create
Premium Debut albums Body of water Tort
Professor Swenson Criminal Law November 27‚ 2012 McCleskey v. Kemp Mr. McCleskey was a Black man‚ that was convicted of two counts armed robbery and one count of murder in the Supreme Court of Fulton County‚ Georgia. His convictions were due to the robbery of a furniture store and the killing of a white police officer while the robbery was occurring. There was evidence presented at trial that proved one of the bullets to be from a .38 caliber Rossi revolver‚ which fit the description of
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Crime Habeas corpus
Frye v. United States In 1923 defendant James Alphonso Frye was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed the decision. The defense counsel offered an expert witness to testify on the results of a systolic blood pressure deception test‚ which was the rudimentary precursor to the lie detector. That motion was denied. The defense counsel then offered that another test be conducted in the courtroom but were denied again. The prosecution then argued the “while the courts will go a long
Premium Expert Appeal Evidence law
Brief Kraft‚ Inc. v. Federal Trade Commissio Plaintiff/Appellant: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Defendant/Appellee: Kraft Inc. History: Federal Trade Commission instituted a deceptive advertising proceeding against Kraft Inc. Kraft was instructed to terminate certain ads due to false advertising. Facts: In March 1987‚ Kraft added a subscript on the television commercial and as a footnote in the print media version‚ the disclosure that “one ¾ ounces slice has 70% of the calcium of five ounces
Premium Marketing Kraft Foods United States
Bravo Fernandez v. United States is a court case that deals with Double Jeopardy. Double Jeopardy can be defined as “the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense (dictionary.com). ” Bravo Fernandez v. United States was argued on October 4th‚ 2016‚ because of an incident that took place in May of 2005. Mr. Fernandez‚ whom is the president of a private security firm in Puerto Rico‚ and Hector Martinez-Maldonado who is a member of the Senate. Both traveled to Las Vegas to watch a boxing match
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
Period 24 September‚ 2014 Dennis VS. The United States The case Dennis VS. The United States is a case that has largely to do with First Amendment rights. In this case‚ one side argues that the American Government should not be allowed to infringe upon an individual’s rights and the other side argues that the government should be allowed the power to limit rights dealing with freedom of speech in order to ensure national security. The findings in this case allow for many of the security precautions which
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Furman v. Georgia Nicholas‚ 4 Furman v. Georgia: The Death Penalty Ethan Nicholas Liberty High School AP Government 4A Furman v. Georgia was one of the many court cases that dealt with the death penalty. This time‚ the topic of the death penalty was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. This particular case ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. ?The ban on ?cruel and unusual punishments? is one of the most difficult
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Capital punishment
Case Brief A.4 GNAZZO v. G.D. SEARLE & CO. 973 F.2d 136 (1992) U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit Pierce‚ Circuit Judge Facts: On November 11‚ 1974‚ Gnazzo had an intrauterine device (IUD) inserted in her uterus for contraceptive purposes. The IUD was developed‚ marketed and sold by G.D. Searle & Co. (Searle). When Gnazzo’s deposition was taken‚ she stated that her doctor had informed her that “the insertion would hurt‚ but not for long‚” and that she “would have uncomfortable and probably
Premium Civil procedure Causality Complaint