Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
allowing Turner to continue to work as a shaker table inspector. When analyzing this case‚ Turner’s medical problems appeared to be limited to her job as a shaker table inspector. She was a qualified individual for the job and received several accommodations under the ADA‚ but her medical problems did not limit any major life sustaining activities. She had difficulty with very few activities. As stated in the case‚ “the activities in which she can participate in are limited and do not require any
Premium Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Disability United States
struck his vehicle onto the plaintiff resulting in the death of her child even though the child was a fetus at the time of the accident. Conclusion: The plaintiff’s motion to recover damages for the wrongful death of her child would be denied. Under case 370 Md. 227‚ 804 A.2d 1151 in a similar suit as to the one we are doing the plaintiff was not able to recover for the loss of her child as a result of a car
Premium Automobile Family Ethics
Kato v. Briney‚ 183 N.W. 2d 657 (Iowa 1971) Facts Defendant Briney inherited a farm house which remained unoccupied for approximately ten years. During that period there were multiple housebreaking occurrences which caused damage to the property. Defendant and her husband were annoyed by the constant vandalism and set up a 20 gauge spring shotgun trap in one of the bedrooms which was set to shoot the legs of a trespasser entering the room. Plaintiff Katko and his accomplice McDonough entered
Premium Jury Law Property
Case Study: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Joshua Weisman Webster University HRMG 5700 QD F2 In the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc.‚ Joseph Oncale was the victim of repeated harassment‚ sexual‚ physical and mental‚ from at least three members of the work crew‚ of which two had a supervisory position over him. When Oncale brought his complaints to the supervisors‚ they took no noticeable actions against the harassers and‚ after he had experienced
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Pleading Court
employee unreasonably failed to avoid the harm‚ the employer will be liable” (EEOC‚ 1999). 2. The cases Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to the current case because of many reasons. In Ellerth‚ “the Court concluded that there was no tangible
Premium Employment Law Tort law
time‚ various cases will be examined starting from the Ogden Vs. Gibbons case and their impact on the free market evaluated with key concern being emphasized on the role the congress played in ensuring that market equilibrium was achieved through supply and demand controls. The paper will also analyze various cases like the Wickard v. Filburn (1942)‚ United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)‚ NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)‚ Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig‚ Inc. (1935)‚ Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Premium United States Constitution Economics Supreme Court of the United States
ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
synonym of common law: general rule. In the case of Child V. Desormeaux‚ it was proven by the courts that the social hosts did not own a duty of care to the people injured by the defendant’s actions. “I conclude that as a general rule‚ a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol and that the courts below correctly dismissed the appellants’ action.” The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the case of Child v. Desormeaux supports the current common
Premium Law Tort Duty of care
of hot water V. amygdalina leaves extract (500 mg/kg) reduced blood glucose concentration of both normoglycaemic and hyperglycaemic rats induced by alloxan (Osinubi‚ 2007). 2.4.2.3 Antioxidant activity Several studies have shown that V. amygdalina possess antioxidant activity (Yeap et al.‚ 2010). Ethanol and aqueous extracts showed good antioxidant activity using different models (Ayoola et al.‚ 2008; Owolabi et al.‚ 2008). Igile et al. (1994) characterizes flavonoids occurring in V. amygdalina leaves
Premium Diabetes mellitus Blood sugar Insulin