Bar V. Anita M: Court Case Study

Procedural posture: The case is before the Northern District of New York after the plaintiff, Howard I. Ginsburg, filed an amended petition as the administrator of the estate of his deceased son, Bradley Marc Ginsburg, asking that the City of Ithaca and Cornell University be held negligent for Bradley’s wrongful death as well as personal injuries and conscious pain and suffering.

The assumption approach is the result of two Supreme Court cases, Horowitz and Ewing. In Horowitz, a medical student brought a due process claim against the University of Missouri-Kansas City for dismissing her for academic reasons. The Supreme Court first discussed whether Horowitz had a protected interest. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff never alleged a property interest, but that if she were to do so, she would have to rely upon Missouri state law to have a valid claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court assumed the plaintiff had a property interest in her case without deciding the question. Instead of addressing the property interest question, the Supreme Court found that the university provided the plaintiff sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Supreme Court never determined whether the student had a property interest in her education.

Facts: Andre Henry’s motion pertains to taped conversations between himself and Kreg Williams, a fellow inmate, that occurred on or about April 29, 2004, December 8, 2004, and January 27, 2005, while Henry was incarcerated for multiple parole violations at the State Correctional Institute of Somerset. Williams was an inmate at Somerset and an informant that participated in the federal investigation of Andre Henry. Henry claims and argues that he had "hired" Williams as his counsel seeking assistance about parole violations that were set against him. Henry refers to Williams as a "Jailhouse Lawyer," a "paralegal," and "counsel." Williams is not a licensed attorney and there is no evidence that Williams made himself out to be a licensed attorney.

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

In this brief, I am going to prove to you, the judges and the court, that Officer Raymond’s initial stop is objectively justified under the Fourth Amendment and the New Setonia Statute. Because the truck was old, Officer Raymond’s experience being a police officer, and Mr. Jackson’s making movements towards the glovebox while Officer Billy was approaching the car, this proved there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Additionally, even if Mr. Jackson’s car was not a commercial vehicle, there were enough other factors pertaining to search of the truck that made the mistake of law objectively reasonable. Based on all of the facts and the evidence listed in the case, the state of New Setonia is going to win.

In the city of San Francisco, California, of 1880, there was an ordinance passed; stating that all laundry businesses are required to be in brick buildings, not in wooden ones. Seemingly, it seems that the dictum was established because of the possible chances of fire hazards with wooden buildings. There were 240 laundry businesses out of commission, while 69 other laundry businesses, wooden ones, were able to stay afloat. Now, what’s the difference between the two? The major difference is that the 240 owners (that were arrested) were Chineses and the the 69 owners (the ones that should’ve been charged as well) were white. This led to the court case, Yick Wo V. Hopkins,when Yick Wo was arrested because of he voiced his opinions, petitioning

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

Abortion has been one of the most controversial topics of America fought between two sides since the 1800s. It was not until the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, that the two sides that are known today as Pro-Choice and Pro-Life emerged as the names of the people fighting for each of their thoughts and beliefs.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

In effort to help you prepare for the upcoming Multi Disciplinary Team meeting for the case The State V. Sam Ruth, you have asked me to look further into the following concerns (1) Wendy’s “normal” medical exam findings. (2) Wendy’s diagnosis of a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and if it is relevant to her disclosure of sexual abuse; (3) Wendy’s resistance with testifying in court; and (4) Wendy’s recent recanting of her allegations of sexual abuse.

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her