Electrical and Electronic Engineering Course no.: EEE 2103 Name of the Paper: “COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF P-N JUNCTION” Submitted to: Mr. Md. Ziaur Rahman Submitted by: Shafa Al Shahid (11.01.05.090) Abdullah al Rumi (11.01.05.091) Md. Shadman Khan (11.01.05.092) Reaz Ahmed (11.01.05.093) Saidur Rahman Mishu (11.01.05.094) Date of submission: 28.06.2012 Comprehensive Study On P-N Junction Diode Shafa Al Shahid ‚ Abdullah al Rumi‚ Md. Shadman Khan‚ Reaz Ahmed‚ Saidur Rahman
Premium Semiconductor
THE ROYAL WEDDING Every woman in this world has a dream of becoming a princess. Who would not? Isn’t it so lovely living the rest of your life with the man of your dream? Living in a palace like in Disney movies? Kate Middleton‚ a commoner‚ now the Duchess of Cambridge‚ became an instrument of hope of becoming a princess for these young ladies. Commoner or rich‚ they are all looking up to Kate. It gives hope for all young ladies that someday they will find their prince too. The royal wedding
Premium Prince Royal family Monarch
applies to any weakness or predisposition of the plaintiff to a particular injury or illness regardless of the defendant’s knowledge. An illustration of this rule can be found in the following case which are; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962) and Robinson v Post office (1974) 1 WLR 1176. The case of Smith v Leech Brain is about a galvanizer who is the plaintiff’s husband and work at the defendant’s company. His job is to lift articles into a tank of a molten metal via a crane. The plaintiff’s husband
Premium Law Tort Tort law
The Significance of the Right to Effective Counsel in a Criminal Case and Powell v. Alabama The right to counsel is a fundamental common law principle that aims to set a fair criminal trial. The right to have the assistance of counsel for defence is the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defence‚ even if he cannot afford one. This right comes from a variety of sources‚ the first one being the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution‚ which is the part of the United
Premium Law United States Constitution Jury
Although students do not lose their rights as they walk through the school gates‚ their rights are restricted for the safety of others. The court case of Tinker v. Des Moines argues the same issue of the rights of students while on school grounds. “Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work‚ they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
is that enough? If not‚ what should we do? The letters alone are not enough to help Mr. Jamison. Herrera v. Collins says that‚ generally‚ a “free-standing” claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence does not state a ground for federal habeas relief‚ unless it is coupled with an independent constitutional violation that occurred in the criminal proceedings. Herrera v. Collins‚ 506 U.S. 390‚ 400-01 (1993). The Court seemingly left open the question of whether a very powerful showing
Premium Jury Law Supreme Court of the United States
in the South was needed. This made the American economy dependent upon slavery. There was much debate about the ethics of slavery and many thought it to be wrong. In 1857‚ the United States Supreme Court case of “Dred Scott v. Sandford” took place that changed America as we know it. This case brought up the issues of slavery and the future of the US. It brought to light the important responsibility politicians have in making important decisions that can affect the future. A
Premium Slavery in the United States Supreme Court of the United States Abraham Lincoln
Abington Township v Schempp Date: Decided In June 17‚ 1963 or Feb 27‚1976 Problem: Schempp filed suit on the Abington school district for requiring students to read verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania. Outcome: Schempp argued that it was unconstitutional‚ violating religious freedom. Part of the constitution: The First amendment: exercise of free religion‚ speech‚ and press The fourteen amendment: Never should any state impede the life‚ liberty‚ or property of a person Precedent: Got
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Casey (1992). The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe v. Wade (1973). The issue addressed was‚ if any state can force a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours‚ if married‚ require consent from her husband‚ and‚ if she’s a minor‚ have parental consent (Oyez). The case was a 5-4 decision in favor of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This decision reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. The Court upheld the 24-hour waiting period and the parental consent
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey Roe v. Wade
Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972) III. FACTS: On April 6th‚ 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident‚ under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug‚ medicine‚ instrument‚ or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution