What is the Walker v Commissioner case summary?
Plessy v. Ferguson was an 1896 decision by the US Supreme Court that confirmed the principle of "Separate but Equal" and minority segregation. The case began in Louisiana in 1892. Homer Plessy agreed to be arrested to test the 1890 law establishing "whites only" train cars. Although he himself w…as one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, he was still legally required to sit in the "colored" car of the train. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states." In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case and found the law constitutional. Plessy paid the fine for the offense, but the case renewed black opposition to such laws. The Plessy decision set the precedent that "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal" (which was seldom the case). The "separate but equal" doctrine had already been extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools. Not until 1954, in the equally important Brown v. Board of Education decision, would the "separate but equal" doctrine be struck down. ( Full Answer )
An administrator with will annexed is an administrator (appointed by the court) who takes the place of an executor under a will. The administrator steps in either when a will fails to nominate an executor or the named executor is unable to serve.
Answer . The 'v' in the name of a court case does not stand for 'versus', but for 'and' (in civil proceedings) or 'against' (in criminal proceedings).
Gibbons v. Ogden was argued before the US Supreme Court on February 5, 1924, and the Court released its decision on March 2, 1824. Gibbons established Congress had sole constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Case Citation: Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
He decided that people ofAfrican descent imported into the u.s. and there descendants were not citizens so they did not have legal rights to sue.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) Here is the summary of that case. This case was decided on June 10, 1968: A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them …proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [p2]concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved. ( Full Answer )
A commisioner is basically a Lawyer with no Judge degree but has power to enforce Judgements just like a regular Judge would in the event that the judge is out on vacation or leave, or If the seat is vacant or if he or she is finishing requirements to become a judge (this would take years) but He or… she can still fully enforce as a judge. ( Full Answer )
How can you determine if the values of the summary statistics for a valiable differ for subgroups of cases?
hi members, i have been faced with the same question. but this was my idea.. to answer this question, we should ask ourselves the following quetions.. what are the subgroups of cases? . what can you learn from calculating summary statistics seperately for subgroups of cases? . how can you graph …summary statistics for subgroups? . with these questions answered then you have answered the whole question.. H. IKOBA ( Full Answer )
The Massachusetts Supreme Court case Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111, 4 Met. (1842) was an early departure from typical court decisions involving union organization practices during the mid-19th-century industrial era. Hunt and six representatives of the Boston Bootmaker's Union called a str…ike against a local manufacturer for hiring non-union workers in an attempt to pressure the owner to create a closed (all-union) shop. Hunt and his fellow organizers were arrested convicted under an old English common law practice prohibiting all forms of restraint of trade, and condemning unionization as a criminal conspiracy. Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw held the workers had a right to peaceably assemble and protest on behalf of their common interests, and said the workers could not be indicted as criminal conspirators for organizing a labor union or a strike. Commonwealth v. Hunt was an unusual departure from the pro-business rulings that predominated during that time. While the case set an important precedent, it had little immediate impact on labor laws in the United States. Both the courts and legislature continued to favor business interests over workers until the 1920s and 30s, when various social, economic and political pressures caused a shift more in favor of labor. ( Full Answer )
In Mapp v. Ohio, police arrived at a home seeking a bombingsuspect. After failing to gain entry the first time, they returnedwith what was allegedly a search warrant and forcibly entered thepremises. While conducting their search, obscene materials werefound. The owner was tried and convicted for po…ssession of thesematerials. All evidence acquired from a search and seizure that isin violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in thestate's case. ( Full Answer )
case study`s are basically stupid real life stories relating to companies ,people , government & courts mostly.. in this case SOLOMAN vs SOLOMAN..... SOLOMAN WAS A MAN WHO HAD A `SHOE` BUSINESS . he saw the rising profits of his business...and ..desided to start a company.. he had 30000pounds wit…h him , of which he took 10000shares and 10000debentures..[approx]. his company suddenly went into liquidation[loss]. he had 17000 to be paid to his creditors..but soloman had only 6000 with him .. he took the money for himself... The creditors went to the court and lodged a complaint.. THE COURT SAID THAT SOLOMAN DESERVES THE MONEY CAUSE HE IS A SEQURED CREDITOR.[debenture holder are sequred creditors]. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. [sorry 4 giving u al only the summary !im not in the mood of typing.]. ask me ur doubts at firstname.lastname@example.org[anydoubts!hehe..] ( Full Answer )
In searching public court records online you came across a case summary you had been looking for you are trying to determine if this case has been settled The last entries of this summary indicate the?
What state are you referring to? Every court system has its own system of tracking cases, and what method one state uses another state most probably will not. You'll need to be more specific. [As an 'aside;' the very fact that the case you are looking at is on-line and available, would tend to indic…ate that it has been adjudicated If it were not, it would not yet be archived.] state of Ohio public access to court records. The case status says closed but when i click on the closed case number, it opens and shows case summary, events, disposition. in the summary it states different event such as court dates, bail amount. when I clicked the disposition a page opensthat says dismissed on motion of prosecutor. It also has a little cameras after some of the stages of the case. when i clicked on the dismissed on motion of prosecutor, it shows the legal paper with the words stamped on the paper and signed by a judge. I am referring to the state of ohio. Is it legally required for me to disclose charged that have been dismissed on motion of a prosecutor to obtain a concealed weapons permit in the state of Ohio? ( Full Answer )
The Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is asking the court to rule on all pleadings that have been filed in the case. This happens if one of the defendants has filed an response or answer. The Plaintiff will usually ask for judgment when filing a motion for summary judgment.
A 17 year old kid robbed a store with a deadly weapon he was adjudicated (charged) as a delinquent in juvenile court and then transferred to adult court was also charged and convicted which they argued that was double jeopardy and they won that case set the precedent
Summary judgment is granted when there is no dispute as to any of the material facts in the incident that caused the lawsuit so that, as a matter of law, one party or the other is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a suit on a credit card bill, if the defendant does not dispute that he is r…esponsible for the full amount claimed by the credit card company, but just won't pay it, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment without having to go to trial because the defendant admits the debt. There is no genuine issue of material fact that has to be resolved by trial.. Now if the defendant denies that he is responsible for all or part of the debt (for instance if the card had been stolen and charges were billed for purchases not made by the defendant but the credit card company does not believe him) there is an issue of material fact that has to be determined at a trial. The issue is did the defendant actually make the charges or not. Summary judgment cannot be granted as long as there is a genuine issue. ( Full Answer )
Vuylsteke The court awarded Vuylsteke $74,012 ($72,000 for the annual salary and $2,012 for shipping costs to move to London). Broan appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the award. As to Broan's argument that Vuylsteke had not taken reasonable measures to mitigate her dam…ages, the court stated that the "question of whether a plaintiff properly mitigated damages is a question of fact. * * * Here, there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings." The appellate court repeated the lower court's conclusion that "under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable * * * to choose * * *to move to London." The appellate court reiterated the lower court's findings that Vuylsteke "made reasonable efforts to mitigate and was unable to find employment" and that it was "reasonable not obtaining employment of [$]25,000 in the United States." ref: http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0324406029/10761/case12.htm ( Full Answer )
In "The Devil and Tom Walker," set in New England in the early1700s, a narrator relates a story he has heard about a local man'sdealings with the devil. The narrator never claims that the storiesare true, only that they are widely believed. According to local legend, a treasure is buried in a dark …grove onan inlet outside of Boston. It is said that Kidd the Pirate left itthere under a gigantic tree and that the devil himself "presided atthe hiding of the money, and took it under his guardianship." Sincethe pirate Kidd was hanged, no one has disturbed the treasure orchallenged the devil's right to it. In the year 1727 a local man, the notorious miser Tom Walker, findshimself in the dark grove alone at dusk while taking a short cutback to his house. Tom is well known among the townspeople for hispitiful horse, his loud wife, and the couple's miserly habits inwhich they "conspired to cheat each other." Unaware that treasurelay nearby, Tom stops to rest against a tree outside the remains ofan Indian fort. Despite local legends of the evil goingson at thesite, Tom "was not a man to be troubled with any fears of thekind." After absentmindedly digging up an old skull, Tom is suddenlyreprimanded by a gruff voice. The voice belongs to a man who isblackened by soot and grime and who introduces himself as the blackwoodman. Soon enough, Tom realizes that he is in the company of thedevil himself. After a brief conversation, "Old Scratch," as Tomcalls him, offers Tom the treasure in exchange for a fewconditions. He declines. Back home, he tells his wife whattranspired in the woods, and she is outraged that he passed up theopportunity for them to gain great wealth in exchange for his soul.She takes it upon herself to seek out the devil and strike abargain on her own. After several trips to the fort in the woods,she becomes frustrated by the devil's unwillingness to appear toher. One day, she gathers the couple's few possessions of value inher apron and heads off for the woods. She never returns.Eventually, Tom wanders to the woods to find out what happened toher and discovers her apron hanging from a tree. It contains herheart and liver. Hoof-prints and clumps of hair at the base of thetree hint at a fierce struggle. "Old Scratch must have had a toughtime of it!" he remarks. Nevertheless less, the next time the devilappears to Tom, he is eager to strike a deal now that he will nothave to share anything with his wife. Balking at the devil's suggestion of becoming a slave-trader, Tomdecides that he will become a usurer, or a moneylender, sincegaining the treasure is contingent upon being employed in thedevil's service. Tom immediately sets up shop in a "counting house"in Boston and attains great wealth by cheating people out of theirmoney and charging them outrageous interest. He builds a luxurioushouse but refuses to spend money to furnish it properly. He buys anexpensive carriage but fails to maintain it, and his horses he onlybegrudgingly feeds. When Tom grows old, he begins to worry about the terms of his dealwith the devil and suddenly becomes a "violent church-goer" in aneffort to cheat the devil out of receiving his soul. He reads thebible obsessively and prays loudly and long in church each week.Among the townspeople, "Tom's zeal became as notorious as hisriches." Nevertheless, one morning the devil conies calling andinstantly whisks Tom away on a black horse in the midst of athunderstorm to the Indian fort in the woods, never to be seenagain. Town officials charged with settling Tom's estate discoverhis bonds and money reduced to cinders, and soon enough his houseburns to the ground as well. ( Full Answer )
Salomon conducted his business as a sole trader. He sold it to a company incorporated for the purpose called A Salomon and Co Ltd. The only members were Mr Salomon, his wife, and their five children. Each member took one Â£1 share each. The company bought the business for Â£39,000. Mr Salomon su…bscribed for 20,000 further shares. However, Â£10,000 was not paid by the company, which instead issued Salomon with series of debentures and gave him a floating charge on its assets. When the company failed the company's liquidator contended that the floating charge should not be honoured, and Salomon should be made responsible for the company's debts. ( Full Answer )
Here is a summary of The Centipede by Rony V. Diaz: Eddie is a little kid who often gets picked on by his sister. Hedescribes a time when he went into her dollhouse and broke one ofher dolls and she got so angry that she fell down, foaming at themouth, and had to go to the hospital. Ever since then…, the familyhas to be calm around her and work at not angering her or inspiringany extreme emotion because she has a weak heart. So Eddie takesit. He takes it when she complains about his pigeons and they haveto let them go. He cries, but doesn't retaliate when she burns hisbutterflies. He says nothing when she asks that his monkey bekilled because it is mocking her. He tells of a hunting trip with his father when they first met adog that he adopts, and how it has helped him since, how he hangsout with it every day, why it is important to him. And one day hesees his sister beating it with a stick. He says nothing, becausehe shouldn't upset her, but his hatred is building from all thetimes that she has been cruel to him and destroyed the things thathe loves. She tells him that if he allows it in the house again shewill have the workman kill it, because it ruined her slippers. Heruns after the dog, calling it. He finally gets close enough to seeit, though it won't come to him or allow him to touch it, and hesees that his sister has punctured the dog's eye. When he comes home, the workman shows him a centipede that he foundwhile chopping wood. Eddie kills it so that it won't hurt him tocarry it, goes inside, and throws it in his sister's lap. Shescreams, accuses him of trying to kill her, and falls down,clutching her chest in pain, moaning. He feels bad, saying that thecentipede is dead (it can't hurt her), but she doesn't move. That is how the story ends. The reader is left to wonder whathappened to the sister, and what happens next. It seems to be astory about how not allowing our emotions to be vented in some waycan be dangerous, but also about injustice, and how we deal withit. ( Full Answer )
In Gibbons and Proctor (1918) a child's father and his mistress failed to feed the child, so that in the end it died of starvation: they were guilty of murder.
If you mean a summary cause (respectively a summary cause case)then in Scotland it is this: "Summary cause procedure deals with claims over Â£3,000 and up toÂ£5,000. It can also be used for cases that are too complicated forsmall claims but not complicated enough for ordinary causeprocedure."
'V.' stands for: - 'and' in civil cases - 'against' in criminal proceedings NOT 'versus'
Facts: . D sold smoke balls. They made an advertisement that said that they would pay a reward to anyone who got the flu after using the ball as directed 3 times a day for 2 weeks. They showed their sincerity by depositing money is a specific bank. . P used the D's product as advertised. P then …contracted influenza. . P asked for payment and sued D after D refused to pay. Procedural History: . Lower court found for P, contract valid. . Court of Appeal affirmed, found for P, contract valid. Issues: . How does an offer for a reward become binding? . What kind of notification is required in cases where the offer can be accepted by performance only? Holding/Rule: . An offer for a reward (offers that can only be accepted by performance only) becomes binding upon the performance of the conditions requested in the offer. . In cases where the offer can be accepted by performance only, notification of acceptance does not need to precede the performance (offeror does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance apart from notice of the performance). Reasoning: . In offers of rewards, they are offers to anybody who performs the conditions named, and anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer. The performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer. . If notice of acceptance is required, the person who makes the offer gets the notice of acceptance contemporaneously with his notice of the performance of the condition. . Advertisers get benefit out of this kind of arrangement which is enough to constitute consideration. . The offeree has suffered detriment necessary for consideration by using the product as prescribed. Dissent: . None. Notes: . Court looked at the context of the offer to aid the court in making an interpretation about how the party expected to get notice. . Public nature of the offer. . Would be too much correspondence, too much paper, not much good ( Full Answer )
Dred Scott was a slave. His owner took him outside the south andthrough states that did not allow slavery. These states had rulesthat any enslaved person brought into the state became free. DredScott sued to try to win his freedom. The Dred Scott case had a very broad and damaging outcome. TheSupre…me Court ruled that Dred Scott, a negro, had no rightswhatsoever. He was property, not a person or a citizen. He had noright to sue in federal court. Further, the court ruled that thefederal government had no legal right to interfere with theinstitution of slavery. Slavery advocates were encouraged and beganto make plans to expand slavery into all of the western territoriesand states. This created much of the tension that caused the CivilWar. Quick Facts . Dred Scott was a slave who lived in the free territories ofIllinois and Wisconsin before moving with his owner to the slaveterritory of Missouri. When his owner died he sued his owner's wifefor his freedom. He claimed that since he had lived so many yearson "free soil" that he deserved to have his freedom. . Dred Scott and his family (except for his younger daughter,Lizzie) had lived for a significant time in "free" territory, whichshould have automatically guaranteed their right to emancipationunder the "once free, always free" doctrine. Unfortunately, Scottdidn't attempt to exercise this option until he and his family wereliving in Missouri, a slave-holding state. . Scott attempted to purchase his family's freedom for $300, butIrene Emerson refused the offer, so Scott sued for their freedom incourt, a strategy that had worked for certain other former slaves.The first case against Irene Emerson ( Scott v. Emerson, (1847) was dismissed for lack of evidence; by the time the secondcase was tried ( Scott v. Sanford, (1857), Emerson'sbrother, John Sanford had assumed responsibility for his sister'slegal affairs (which is why his name is on the case instead ofhers). The case citation is Dred Scott v.Sandford , 60 US 393 (1857) ( Full Answer )
it's about a girl who fight demons. she has to fight 5 demon cause she has 5 strange coin. she think her friend is cursed from one of the demon. what will she do?
Nixon v. United States is not related to the case involving former President Richard Nixon. Two different cases have been filed with the US Supreme Court titled Nixon v. United States. The first was former President Richard Nixon's appeal of a US District Court ruling ordering him to turn ov…er the Watergate tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, in 1974. That case was consolidated into United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974), and is always referred to as such. For more information about the Watergate case, see Related Questions, below. The other Nixon ruling listed in United States Reports (the official volumes containing US Supreme Court opinions) is Nixon v. United States, 506 US 224 (1993). This case is not related to former President Nixon, but to an impeached Mississippi US District Court judge, Walter Nixon, who appealed the Senate's impeachment ruling to the US Supreme Court. In that case, the Court determined that impeachment proceedings are non-justiciable, and are political matters, or the province of Congress. The 1993 Nixon case set a formal precedent preventing impeached officials from appealing their impeachment in court. William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of a unanimous Court. Justices Stevens, White and Souter wrote concurring opinions. For more information, see Related Questions, below. ( Full Answer )
Mann v. State, Case No. 2D09-127 (2009) Mann v. State was a recent case heard in the District Court of Appeals of Florida, Second District, in which David Mann appealed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Mann had been charged with possession and sale of cocaine within 1,000 fe…et of a school on two separate occasions in February and March 2006. Mann admitted to the March offense under oath, but denied the February charge. Mann claimed he had been visiting his son at Lee Memorial Hospital on that date, but produced no witnesses or documents supporting his alibi. Mann was convicted and sentenced to four concurrent terms amounting to a total of 180 months (15 years). He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had failed to investigate his alibi or to call his wife or any hospital personnel to testify as witnesses on his behalf. The trial court denied the motion because it was not accompanied by an affidavit from a witness as proof of testimony supporting his claim. The appeals court held that the witness testimony would have been valuable to Mann at trial, and that no supporting documentation was required to be presented with his motion. Trial court decision on motion reversed, case remanded for disposition. ( Full Answer )
Summary Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, which challenged affirmative action quotas. The Supreme Court decided that racial quotas were not acceptable, but race could be a factor in determining admission to college. Detail Rege…nts of the University of California v. Bakke , (1978) started when Allan Bakke applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis in 1973 and 1974. He was rejected both years. The school policy said for every hundred students admitted sixteen of the students must be minority students. Bakke's qualifications (scores and GPA) were higher than every one of the minority students admitted during both of the years that he applied but he was overlooked so that the minority quotas were filled. He took the school to court saying that the school's actions violated the 14 th amendment's equal protection clause and Title VI of California's Civil Rights Act of 1964. He argued that the university had overlooked him solely on the basis race. The case went from the California courts (who ruled in favor of Bakke) to the Supreme Court. There was no single majority opinion. Justices Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist, and Stevens said that whether or not race could be used in admissions processes was not an issue for the Supreme Court. They said that the issue was if the university's special admissions program was unconstitutional. These justices ruled that the school had discriminated against Bakke, which violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. According to them, the program was unconstitutional. Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun said that the university did not violate the constitution when it used race as a factor for admission to their school because it was used to remedy the under-representation of minority groups. These four justices thought that the university violated Title VI of California's Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argued that the quota system let minority groups have guaranteed representation into the school. The ninth judge, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., ruled that the use of race as an admissions factor was acceptable if it was not the only or the deciding factor in an admissions process. He also ruled that Bakke was discriminated against because the university had denied him admission solely because of his race. His decisions were based on the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause. Since the university could not prove that factors besides Bakke's race had made him less qualified then the minority candidates, the school had to admit him. Powell wrote the majority opinion, which said the university had discriminated against Bakke but race could be used as an admissions criterion. All the other justices wrote opinions as well to back up what part of Powell's case they supported. Case Citation: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ( Full Answer )
"Madison" was James Madison, Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson, who was named as the respondent in the case because his office (really Jefferson) refused to deliver some justice of the peace commissions to people John Adams appointed before leaving office. The official citation …of the case is Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) For more information, see Related Questions, below. ( Full Answer )
on ebay there are sellers selling it! i will buy mine ebay too. its about 6 usd and you can find both editions of this case. I dont know if they are authentic but who cares... they look like authentic ones :)
this case is about whether or not a prisoner who is literate is allowed to help another prisoner in writing a writ of Habeas Corpus
A prospective customer is suspected of robbery when jewels shown tohim by a clerk to go missing. Nothing is found. A short time latera lady customer shows up and talks with the clerk awhile, when sheturns to leave, she is searched and the missing jewelry is found onher person. Clues laid out through…out the story encourage readersto try to figure out how this crime was solved. ( Full Answer )
The ruling determined that sesame street had the right to use the letter R in its weekly childrens program. It also, firmly, decided to make letter R's place in the alphabet, after Q but, before S, an irrevocable position.
It is about 5 maroon boys who become young warriors at age 14 which in the most important contest one of them cheats namely charlie. Tommy and Johnny found out and then on an important mission to stop the redcoat soldiers they tell him. He when makes it up by saving Tommy and Johnny and the young wa…rriors led the maroons of mountain top village to victory. ( Full Answer )
An estate contract which had not been registered as a class (iv) land charge was not binding upon a purchaser who knew about it and who provided consideration that appeared to be undervalue.
The Case for the Defense is a short story penned down by Graham Greene. In this story, a man named Adams murders an old lady; the murder case is named as the 'Peckham Murder Case'; there are five witnesses to that brutal murder. Gradually, the murder case is introduced in the court where one Adams b…rother stands in the box while another Adams, identical in looks takes his seat at the back. The sitting Adams is with his wife. The witnesses are called to share their memories of the murder night and one after the other they do. The last witness, Mrs. Salmon, also the prime person in the story identifies the man standing before her as the murderer; but soon as she is pointed to look at the Adams at the back, she is confused. There is a dilemma hanging in the air as to who is the real murderer. The Adams standing in the box thereby is acquitted as lack of evidence takes over. But later on, justice overpowers the plot of the Adams. While going out of the court, one of the Adams brothers is hit by a speeding bus, his skull being exactly hammered just as the way Mrs.Parker's had been.And, the other brother cries over his dead brother's body. The real murderer is still unknown to the reader. So , all we can deduce from this story is the concept of divine justice - may be under the influence of some plan or idea, a criminal could escape; but since the devil gets his due, so did he. ( Full Answer )
This was a case to determine if Walker was an employee of CrystalPalace Football Club or if he was considered as an IndependentContractor. The court determined that he was an employee.
Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion.
At Wars End is a short story written by Filipino writer Rony V.Diaz. The story is about a college student in Manila after the endof WWII.
McCulloch v. Maryland represented a power struggle between the State and Federal government over whose laws should prevail in the event of a conflict. Optionally: The issues involved whether the federal government could charter a bank, and whether a state government could legally tax it. M…cCulloch v Maryland was a debate between strict constructionism and the expansion of implied powers. ( Full Answer )
five maroon boys pass tests of skill and endurance to become warriors in their village. when they go out hunting to celebrate, they suddenly discover that the forest is full of their enemies, the English redcoat. in the campaign that follows, the defeat of the maroons seems certain, but the young wa…rriors help to bring about a great victory. ( Full Answer )
Marbury v. McCulloch is a confused mixture of two different cases heard by the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall. One case is Marbury v. Madison, (1803), and the other is McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819).
The background of Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) involved a Georgia law requiring whites living on Cherokee Indian territory to obtain a state permit. Seven missionaries were arrested and sentenced to four years hard labor, followed by exile from Georgia for failing to comply. The missionaries state…d they didn't seek a state license because they believed their petition would be refused. The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no right to control access to Native American territory; only the United States had governance over Native American Affairs. Explanation Worcester v. Georgia was part of what has become known as the "Indian Trilogy," a series of cases involving Native American rights that were reviewed by the Marshall Court during Andrew Jackson's Presidency. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) addressed a Georgia law requiring whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a permit from the state. When seven missionaries refused to follow the law, the state of Georgia convicted and sentenced them to four years hard labor. The missionaries believed the state had targeted them because of their support of the Cherokee against Georgia's attempt to drive the Native Americans from the state, a goal established in 1828 when Georgia passed laws stripping the Cherokee of their rights (see Related Links, below, for more information). It was generally understood that had they applied for the permits, they would have been denied. When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Court stated the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee classified as a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This gave the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, and barred Georgia from taking action against them. Chief Justice John Marshall further opined that the government did not have the right of possession of Native American land, nor dominion over their laws, short of military conquest or legal purchase. This ruling contradicted an earlier decision of the Marshall Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), in which the Justices unanimously decided the United States owned all Native American-occupied land by virtue of the "Discovery Doctrine," a remnant of European law that states land belongs to whomever "discovers" it. The Court's theory was the United States had assumed Britain's title to the land, and the Native Americans' status was that of tenant. In Johnson, members of the Piankeshaw tribe (part of the Miami Nation) sold a plot of land to the Johnson family in 1773, and the soon-to-be US government sold the same plot to the M'Intosh family in 1775. Johnson, the plaintiff, asserted he had a prior claim to the land, and tried to have M'Intosh evicted. In the Court's opinion, the Piankeshaw sale was invalidated by the "Discovery Doctrine," so they awarded title to the defendant. Implicit in this practice was the idea, acknowledged by Marshall, that Native Americans were "...an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government." The adverse ruling in Worcester v. Georgia countered the interests of the state and federal governments. Jackson was a staunch proponent of Indian removal because, in his view, the Indian land was a valuable commodity, and their occupation stood in the way of progress. The United States had already appropriated more than 22 million acres of land from the Creek (1814) and Seminole (1818) nations by use of military force. The earlier Johnson ruling validated this practice, while the Worcester ruling seemed to condemn it, supporting, instead, Native American rights. Popular folklore alleges that President Jackson's response to the Worcester decision was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" According to Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions , however, what Jackson actually said was, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," meaning the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict (not being a legislative body). Despite the Court's expressed opinion, the only legal ruling in the case was one that overturned Georgia's conviction of the missionaries. Georgia actually complied with the legal aspect of the Supreme Court ruling, and released the plaintiffs, while ignoring the opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory. Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court. By politicizing the Court, Jackson subverted its power as one of the checks and balances on the Executive and Legislative branches. The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 passage of a removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the forcible removal of the Native Americans from their land by the U.S. Army under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears. Case Citation: Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832) ( Full Answer )
The lemon v. Kurtzman case was a very high profile case that happened back in 1971. It pertained to Pennsylvania's 1968 nonpublic Elementary and secondary education act. The case was argued on 3-3-71 and decided on 6-28-71.
Petitioners are the Hazelwood School District in St. Louis County, Missouri; various school officials; Robert Eugene Reynolds, the principal of Hazelwood East High School; and Howard Emerson, a teacher in the school district. Respondents are three former Hazelwood East students who were staff …members of Spectrum, the school newspaper. They contend that school officials violated their First Amendment rights by deleting two pages of articles from the May 13, 1983, issue of Spectrum. Spectrum was written and edited by the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East. The newspaper was published every three weeks or so during the 1982-1983 school year. More than 4,500 copies of the newspaper were distributed during that year to students, school personnel, and members of the community. The Board of Education allocated funds from its annual budget for the printing of Spectrum. These funds were supplemented by proceeds from sales of the newspaper. The printing expenses during the 1982-1983 school year totaled $4,668.50; revenue from sales was $1,166.84. The other costs associated with the newspaper - such as supplies, textbooks, 263 *263 and a portion of the journalism teacher's salary - were borne entirely by the Board. The Journalism II course was taught by Robert Stergos for most of the 1982-1983 academic year. Stergos left Hazelwood East to take a job in private industry on April 29, 1983, when the May 13 edition of Spectrum was nearing completion, and petitioner Emerson took his place as newspaper adviser for the remaining weeks of the term. The practice at Hazelwood East during the spring 1983 semester was for the journalism teacher to submit page proofs of each Spectrum issue to Principal Reynolds for his review prior to publication. On May 10, Emerson delivered the proofs of the May 13 edition to Reynolds, who objected to two of the articles scheduled to appear in that edition. One of the stories described three Hazelwood East students' experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of divorce on students at the school. ( Full Answer )
The facts are straightforward and undisputed. On December 30, 2002, plaintiffs purchased a new motor home manufactured by defendant, which is located in Indiana. From the time that plaintiffs took possession of the motor home, water continuously leaked into it. Plaintiffs took the motor home to t…he dealer for repair of the leaks on several occasions, but the dealer failed to successfully fix the leaks. Plaintiffs also had several phone conversations with representatives of defendant, including the president of defendant, but again the leaks were not corrected. On December 23, 2003, plaintiffs' attorney mailed a letter to defendant notifying it of the leaks and the failed attempts to correct the leaks. In the letter, plaintiffs asked defendant to replace the vehicle in accordance with ORS 646.335. (1) The letter did not reach defendant until December 29, 2003, and plaintiffs filed their complaint the next day. (2) The trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, rejecting defendant's contention that it did not have an opportunity to correct the defect before plaintiffs filed the action. ( Full Answer )
A scoundrel faces the loss of his step-daughter's income, so hedevises a plan to make her fall in love with a man who will foreveronly be for her a fond memory.
Supreme Court case that dictated evidence be in plain veiw of an officer to be admisable unless probable cause to explore
There is no information available online about what a ja-warning notice means when it is in a court case summary image of warning notice. A warning notice is used to tell someone that if things do not change, action will have to be taken against them.
In 1896, the ruling was that a person could testify in a casewithout incriminating himself by giving requested information. Thiswas regarding a case where Brown was testifying in a case againstAlleghany Valley Railway Company, which he worked for.