Ammon V. Welty Case Summary

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of the

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

In May of 1998, Kipland Kinkel brought a gun to his school. Over the course of two days this escalated from: being sent home, to murdering his father and mother, to murdering 2 students and wounding 26, earning a lifetime sentence of 111 years and 8 months in prison. In the court case being examined, the presiding judge addresses the original case, defendants ground for appeal, and the justification for the State’s decision to deny the appeal. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the Higher Court’s decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

The parties are William Marbury and James Madison. William Marbury was commissioned by president Adams as Justice of the Peace, along with many others, on the last day of office. The commission had to be delivered to William Marbury on the same day by John Marshall, the Secretary of State, but that did not happen. The following day Thomas Jefferson, who was from the opposing party, became president and he appointed a new Secretary of State, James Madison. President Jefferson declared the commissions void and they were not delivered to the persons in question including William Marbury, who therefore was not appointed Justice of the Peace as he was promised. William Marbury went to the Supreme Court to ask for a writ of mandamus in order to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commissions. On 24 February 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall, former Secretary of State during president Adams’ term of office, wrote the Court’s decision.

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case, deciding over the decision of slavery was legal in the newly discovered territory. It debated over the decision of whether it was legal for slaveholders to take their property into the newly formed territory or whether their property should be freed in this process. The ruling concluded in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The decision took three attempts to finally reach a conclusion about whether an African American living in recently developed land should be considered free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, the Scott v. Sandford Case, the eradicating of slavery, and the path to black citizenship in the proceeding decades.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.