FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant‚ Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan‚ took almost $30‚000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently‚ and returned the money before any charges were filed‚ but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment
Premium
at hazing incidents as a tradition or big joke‚ it is dangerous and unacceptable behavior. There is a lot that can be done to prevent hazing. Raising awareness that it is wrong is crucial in preventing such incidents as the one in the Seamons v. Snow case. Coaches who consider potential issues before they occur will be better prepared to meet their legal duties (Gaskin‚ L.‚ 1993). Background On October 11‚ 1993 Brian Seamons‚ a high school football player for Sky View High School in Utah‚ was
Premium University High school College
Death-Qualified Jury It was determined in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois‚ 391 U.S. 510 (1968) that upon the trail and conviction of said name petitioner for murder was sentenced to the death penalty. However their was challenge for cause based on an Illinois statute‚ that allows for any individual juror member that when question at the point of being accepted as potential jurors. If it is determined that he or she would rule in favor of the death penalty‚
Premium Capital punishment Jury Law
In the present case‚ the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case‚ Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though‚ his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some‚ but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard‚ this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school‚ so the
Premium United States Discrimination Race
Clements v Clements case. This case is of great significance which revolves around a severe motorcycle accident that took place from 2009 to 2012‚ which resulted in the plaintiff‚ Mrs Clements suffering severe traumatic injuries. The verdict still remains undecided in the Supreme Court of Canada based on the improper use of the But For Test and The Material Contributions Test. The abundance of information presented in the three court systems depict why is why it is such a difficult case to solve
Premium Law Jury Crime
Mapp v. Ohio‚ noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady‚ Dolly Mapp‚ who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted‚ Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
later found guilty. The petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968‚ the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore‚ a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation‚ accompanied by
Premium Police Crime Constable
Furman v. Georgia Paper Mary Amon CJS/221 University of Phoenix Gaylia Clark William Henry Furman v. State of Georgia In the year 1972‚ January in the State of Georgia. A gentleman named William Henry Furman went into a house to rob. In the middle of that night the resident woke up to see Furman robbing the house. In the process of escaping Furman tripped and his firearm fell and went off at that very time‚ killing the resident. The death was a tragic one‚ if one could describe. Furman did not
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Legal Hurdles With the introduction of Birth Control to the public it had its fair share of legal consequences. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is considered the foundational decision in recognizing the constitutional right of sexual privacy (Stein‚ 2010‚ p. 29). In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut it was stated that Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton were arrested for giving “information‚ instruction‚ and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception” (Stein
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Bush v Schiavo 885 So. 2d 321 (2004) a. Plaintiff: Jeb Bush‚ Governor of Florida b. Defendant: Michael Schiavo‚ Spouse of Theresa Schiavo II. Court Decision By: Supreme Court of Florida III. Procedural History: Mr. Schiavo requested the guardianship court to permit him to end the life-prolonging procedures that were supporting his wife‚ who was in a persistent vegetative state. Theresa Schiavo’s parents‚ Robert and Mary Schindler‚ opposed the motion and brought the case in to trial. After the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court