On June 13th‚ 1966‚ the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case. This ruling established “Miranda Rights‚” a standard police procedure which revolves around the principle that an arresting officer must advise a criminal suspect of his or her rights before being taken into custody and interrogated. The Court’s ruling in this landmark case effectively reinforced the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees
Premium Crime Police Miranda v. Arizona
Historical Background In the Early 1880’s Sweden was a class system with a high concentration of capital within a tiny group of wealthy families. There existed a small middle class‚ and a mass of peasants living in the countryside. Poverty was widespread. It was in this environment that the Swedish social democratic labor party (SAP) was formed in 1889. In the beginning‚ the party was formed on two goals‚ universal suffrage and the eight-hour workday. By 1911‚ the SAP was becoming an important
Premium United States Marxism Sociology
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided to put the case on trial; it related back to the Betts v. Brady case of 1942. Unlike Betts v. Brady’s 6-3 ruling in which Betts had lost‚ Gideon won the case with an astounding 9-0 majority. The main issue of the case centers on proper representation of the defendant. In order for the reader to fully understand the scope of the case‚ he or she needs to consider Betts v. Brady. 1Gideon’s case originally started in the lower courts. 2He went to the 13th
Premium Gideon v. Wainwright United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Russell v. the Queen (1882): This case fell according to the JCPC under powers in favor of the federal government. The reasoning for this case is not convincing. The reason for this is that it does not ban alcohol for the entire country‚ but instead merely restricts and regulates it. The legislation for this case could have fallen under: section 92 (9)‚ which deals with saloons‚ taverns‚ and shops; section 92 (13) which is about property and civil rights in the province; or section 92 (16) which
Premium United States Canada United States Constitution
of title by registration rather than registration by title (Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. * Indefeasibility- The registered proprietor holds the title free of all unregistered interests. S42 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). * Registration of a void instrument confers immediate indefeasibility in the absence of fraud (Frazer v Walker [1967]] 1 AC 569. * Sir Garfield Barwick sitting on the Privy Council in Frazer v Walker described it as: “a convenient description of the immunity from
Premium Property Law Copyright
Even though the Convention on the European Convention on Human Rights separates from other human rights treaties because it has its own judicial body‚ looking at their case law for guidance can still be useful. In the Belilos v. Switzerland case‚ the Court decided that a interpretative declaration was to be treated like a reservation. Further‚ because of article 64 § 1 of the Convenetion‚ that requires "precision and clarity" ‚ the reservation in question
Premium Law Contract Contract law
Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1‚100‚000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is
Premium Escape Tort Legal terms
Maternity Case 5: Amelia Sung (Core) Documentation Assignment 1. Document Amelia Sung’s admission to the labor unit‚ including the plan of care and appropriate referrals. 36-year-old Asian lady G2P1 (L1)‚ Amelia Sung‚ was hospitalized six hours earlier in a state of active labor. She was 100% effaced‚ -1 station‚ 4 cm dilated‚ and fetus in vertex position‚ when she was admitted. At 0230‚ epidural anesthesia was started. At 03:30‚ her membranes ruptured. A step stool was in the room because of her
Premium
non-client in order for that auditing firm to be liable for any damages done unto the third party. In the Ultramares v. Touche case‚ the judges found that a liability arose out of a duty that Touche‚ the accounting firm‚ owed to the non-client‚ Ultramares. Touche certified that their client‚ for whom they were performing the audit‚ was solvent when in fact it was not. In the case‚ it is pointed out that Touche knew their client was borrowing at large sums and required “certified balance sheets for
Premium Tort Accountant Audit
Administration Law November 24‚ 2012 Korb v. Raytheon‚ 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass) case involves an employee‚ Lawrence J. Korb and Raytheon Corporation the company. “Korb was terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operation of Raytheon Corporation because he publicly expressed opinions‚ which was a conflict of interest with the corporation’s economic concern” (http://www.loislaw.com.libdatab.strayer.edu/pns/index.htp). The case involves freedom of speech‚ information and challenges
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States