Salinas V. Texas 570 U.S. 1 (2013) Facts: Two brothers were shot and killed in their home. Police recovered shotgun shells that led them to investigate the petitioner. The petitioner handed over his gun and agreed to go to the police station for questioning. The petitioner answered all of the questions the police had‚ but when it came to the question about the shells matching the petitioner’s gun he went silent. So the police asked a few more questions to which the petitioner answered.
Premium Question Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and out of proportion
Premium Jury Law Tort
negligence claim with this case failed on the reason that the Touche(defendant) owed no duty of care to Ultramares (plaintiff) because Ultramares was not a primary beneficiary of Touche’s professional audit. The court found that Touche was guilty of ordinary negligence but not fraud. Over the years the rule of Ultramares has been expanded in some cases to the point that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares Corp. v Touche is the leading case regarding the application
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
Republic of Austria v. Altmann 124 S.Ct. 2240 FACTS: In 1998 it evidence was discovered that certain works in the Austrian Gallery archives in Vienna‚ Austria had not been obtained from their rightful owners. These works were believed to have been seized by the Nazis or expropriated by the Austrian Republic after World War II. Prior to the Nazi invasion of Austria in 1938‚ the paintings had hung in the Vienna home of Maria Altmann’s uncle‚ Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Mrs. Altmann claims ownership
Premium Austria Germany House of Habsburg
United States 517 U.S. 806 (1996) the police approached a car that broke a traffic violation and saw cocaine in plain view. Police were found to be right in arresting the individuals. This relates to this case because like the cocaine‚ the cigarette burns are in plain view when they invited into the residents. Although there is no direct evidence that Joe’s cigarettes were the cause of Sam’s abuse‚ it is a logical presumption to conclude since he was the one possessing the Marlboros. This case can similarly
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Credibility Probable cause
In the legal case (Unites States v Leon) On August 1981‚ police in Burbank received intel from an informant that Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez were selling narcotics from their personal residence. Police began surveillance of their home without a warrant and identified suspects Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon. Based on their investigation and information obtained from another informant‚ a warrant was obtained. A search of the residence was conducted‚ and large amounts of drug paraphernalia
Premium
Title and Citation: Dennis v. united States 341 U.S. 494 71 S. CT. 857 (1951) 2. Facts of the Case: a. The Smith Act made it a criminal offense to knowingly or willfully advocate the overthrowing of any government in the United States by force or to attempt to commit or conspire to commit the crime the same. The Petitioners were brought up on charges under the Act for allegedly willfully and knowingly conspiring to organize as the Communist Party of the United States‚ a group whose members advocated
Premium United States Cold War World War II
1. In the case of Hampton v. Snead State Community College (SSCC)‚ the one element that Hampton failed to establish of a prima facie case of racial discrimination was the forth element in the case. The forth element in the case stated‚ “SSCC treated similarly situated employees outside of Hampton’s protected class more favorably” (Hampton). According to the court‚ Hampton failed to establish the prima facie case of bring substantial evidence of employees of another race who were tried fairly. The
Premium Prima facie Arbitration Legal burden of proof
Briefing the Case Assignment In the renowned Supreme Court Case of Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education‚ the rule of law was held to be that retaliating against a person because he has complained of being discriminated on the grounds of sex falls under a branch of intentional sex discrimination‚ which is encompassed by Title IX‚ Education Amendments of 1972. This was an important case with respect to intentional sex discrimination and never before had such principle of law been enunciated
Premium Complaint Discrimination Pleading