In the case of Smith v. United States‚ the plaintiff‚ John Angus Smith‚ was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking‚ which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1)‚ the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence‚ and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning
Premium Firearm Crime Gun
Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: In March 1963‚ a kidnapping and sexual assault happened in Phoenix‚ Arizona. On March 13 Ernesto Miranda‚ 23‚ was arrested in his home‚ taken to the police station‚ recognized by the victim‚ and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. It included a typed disclaimer‚ also signed by Miranda‚ stating that he had “full knowledge
Premium
Case Brief for: Obergefell v. Hodges‚ 576 U.S. (2015). Facts: Groups of the same sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio‚ Kentucky‚ Michigan‚ and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriages that occurred in jurisdiction that provide for such marriages. James Obergefell (plaintiffs) in each case argued that the states statutes violated Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the
Premium Marriage Same-sex marriage Homosexuality
WILLIAM MARBURY V. JAMES MADISON‚ SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES 1803 5 U.S. 137‚ U.S. Supreme Court‚ 11-24 Feb. 1803 Facts: The PETITIONER‚ William Marbury‚ was appointed by outgoing president of the United States John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Thomas Jefferson‚ the newly elected president ordered not to deliver commissions to newly appointed judges‚ including the PETITIONER‚ making him unable to assume office. PETITIONER asked the Supreme Court to issue
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Marbury v. Madison
Justin Jethroe Ms. Allen Intro to Corrections April 12‚ 2013 Roper v. Simmons U. S. Supreme Court March 1‚ 2005 543 U.S. 551 Statement of Facts This case in Fenton‚ Missouri involves 17 yrs. old Christopher Simmons born in 1993. Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer were Christopher Simmons friends and accomplices. Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital murder along with Charles Benjamin. The plan was to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering‚ tying up Shirley
Premium Capital punishment Roper v. Simmons Crime
from harm. In the fact that she did not exercise this duty‚ she then breached this duty. The breaching of this duty of care resulted in the actual causation of the facts that led to the plaintiffs Jim’s injuries. Rule of Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur. This case falls under the rule of
Premium Tort Law Tort law
i. Case Citation Goss v. Lopez‚ 419 U.S. 565 (1975) ii. Facts Public school students from Columbus‚ Ohio brought this suit. They claimed that their constitutional right to due process was violated. The students were suspended without hearing prior to their suspension. They were suspended for destroying school property but principals can only suspend up to 10 days or expel them. If suspended they must notify parents without 24 hours and give the reasons. Students may appeal to the
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Education
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Case Brief 764 P.2d 1316 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Billie J. RODMAN‚ Petitioner–Appellant‚ v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital‚ Respondents–Appellees. No. 17721.Nov. 30‚ 1988. Written By: Lawrence Pelkey Facts: Billie J. Rodman‚ Appellant was employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for eight years when‚ on Feb 17‚ 1987‚ she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Prior restrictions
Premium Employment Telephone call Telephone
Facts: In the Case of Blackshades v. the United States‚ defendant Alex Yucel‚ a citizen of Sweden‚ was charged with computer hacking using the malware‚ “RAT‚” under his company called Blackshades. Since he is the founder of the Blackshades‚ “Rat” had sold the malicious software to 6‚000 customers. Blackshades is a malware which includes a remote tool‚ called “RAT.” With the malware‚ it enables it to control the victims’ computers. According to the plaintiff‚ the federal government‚ Blackshades
Premium Computer security Security Computer