1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff
Court Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1966. Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants. Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Virginia v. Moore 272 Va. 717 Facts: The day was February 20‚2003‚ in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
keller v [Type the company name] | Keller v. Inland Metals | Unit 2 | | Sherry Rhodes | 11/2/2011 | [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] | According to the facts of the case Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning‚ Inc‚ the question arises if there was an express warranty presented
Premium Contract law Implied warranty Warranty
-V for Vendetta was a work of major cultural importance for over a decade before the 2005 film adaption helped spread the messages and themes of the film worldwide. Originally in publication from March 1982 through May 1989‚ V for Vendetta is the brainchild of Alan Moore‚ who is widely considered to be one of the greatest comic book writers of all time. The film centers on V‚ a terrorist out to destroy the fascist government of dystopian future England. While the film itself makes many important
Premium V for Vendetta Totalitarianism English-language films
�PAGE � Marbury v. Madison Introduction The case "Marbury v. Madison began on March‚ 1801‚ when a Proponent‚ William Marbury‚ was assigned as a magistrate in the District of Columbia. William Marbury and various others were constituted to government posts made by United States Congress in the last days of President John Adams’s administration; merely these eleventh hour appointments were never completely nailed down. The dissatisfied appointees raised an act of US Congress and litigated for their
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Brown v. Louisiana During the 1960’s‚ many African-Americans believed that civil rights should become a national priority. Young civil rights activists brought their cause to the national stage and demanded the federal government assist them and help resolve the issues that plagued them. Many of them challenged segregation in the South by protesting at stores and schools that practiced segregation. Despite the efforts of these groups and Supreme Court rulings that ordered the desegregation
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Maryland v. Pringle‚ 540 S. 366 (2003) Facts: A police Officer Snyder stopped a car for speeding on August 7‚ 1999 at 3:16 a.m. Partlow‚ the owner of the vehicle was driving the car‚ Pringle was the front seat passenger‚ and Smith was the back seat passenger. Officer Snyder asked Partlow for his driver’s license and the registration. When Partlow opened the glove box to grab his vehicle registration‚ Officer Snyder saw a large quantity of rolled up cash. After‚ checking Partlow’s license
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat
Mapp v. Ohio On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in a Cleveland‚ Ohio suburb received information that a suspect of a bombing case‚ as well as some illegal betting equipment‚ might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter‚ but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. Two officers left‚ and one remained. Three hours later‚ the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. Mapp asked
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The parties involved were Janet Reno‚ attorney general (1993-2001) of the United States‚ which also makes her the head of the U.S. Department of Justice‚ she is the first woman in this position#‚ and the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU). The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserve and extend the basic rights of the U.S. constitution.# b. The problem began when President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Bill into law on February 8‚1996. A group of people‚ led
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States