Black V. Usher Transport Case Summary

EC- 1.7 (A), ABA 1.5(A)- Legal Assistant, Carl, did not introduce himself to Jane as a legal assistant. He simply conducted the interview without properly identifying himself. Jane could have been under the false impression that Carl was also a licensed attorney. Especially since Carl also gave Jane unauthorized legal advice when he advised her about not reporting certain incomes to improve the quality of her case.

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

The facts stated in the case indicate that White was not a forklift operator immediately upon hire but took on that job role within a few weeks. (Obviously from her statement above, she was struggling from the outset to perform duties as a track laborer.) The hiring manager, Marvin Brown, may have

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

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

In Ireland, the defendant made several statements discrediting the plaintiff, a mother as a parent and made statements regarding her parenting skills. The plaintiff argued that the statements were “false” statements of fact.

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

In search of a new life, I boarded the Southern Railroad on March 25th, 1931. I should have known it right then. The Southern Railroad. My fate was in its name. I was a black man on the Southern Railroad. The same South that can not and will not see me, acknowledge me, and tolerate me beyond the color of my skin. Despite the facts, I boarded that train in an attempt to escape the South that did not want me. Then why, why did the South wrap its unforgiving chains around me and pull me back in.

After Reconstruction, African-American rights gained during that period withered, as many states did not enforce the laws enacted to guarantee their rights. If they happened to live in the South, their rights were as good as gone. Not only did those states not impose the laws, they circumvented it and created a new system of oppression for Blacks and other colored people. Moreover, the infamous ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) made racial segregation legal in public accommodations. The fight for equal education for students regardless of their race was a long battle and it extended into the Deep South state of Texas. Sweatt v. Painter was among a number of important legal cases that occurred during the twentieth century, in which African-Americans

Defendant Robert Lee Brown, a Federal Penitentiary inmate, was tried in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for the murder of inmate Elijah Atkinson.

On June 7, 1892, Plessy boarded a New Orleans train and sat in the “whites only” car.  Plessy then informed the conductor that he was black and the railroad officials, following through on the arrangement, arrested Plessy and charged him with violating the Separate Car Act. Tourgée’s plan was officially in motion.  In the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Tourgée argued that the law requiring “separate but equal accommodations” was unconstitutional as it violated the 13th & 14th Amendments. Further, as illustrated by Plessy’s arrest, there was no way for railroad companies to enforce the law. (Had Plessy not announced himself, no one would have ever known he was black.)  As Tourgée anticipated, Judge John H. Ferguson ruled

Eisenberg made claim of sexual harassment and told of employees using illegal substances in the warehouse

P is suing for defamation of his reputation. The reporter has a 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. Dr. P also has a constitutional right of not being defamed. In this situation of freedom of and freedom to, I would like to continue talking about the 4th requirement of defamation. I have said the statement is about public interest and or a public figure. In this case Dr. P in my opinion is a public actor. Because of this we have to prove actual malice. (This is not a part of my response… Just talking to you. You said actual malice is harder to prove. I am actually leaning the other way or going back and forth in my head. It would be so much easier to just say that the reporter had a reasonable effort to verify facts. In this case DR. P is a public figure. I could actually argue either way in the case that there is malice or there is not an obvious disregard for the truth. This is a tough question. One in which I wish this were an in seat class.) In this situation the reporter made false statements while recklessly disregarding the truth. The reporter made no reasonable efforts to verify the fact that Dr. P was screaming for blood. The reasonable effort to verify facts usually applies to private citizens and private matters. While Dr. P is a public figure he has less protection as a public figure. I would argue thought that the reporter had a reckless disregard for the truth. The picture he received does in fact place Dr. P at the cockfight. It doesn’t prove that he was screaming for blood. The reporter’s statements are made up. When it was said, “he secretly revels violence” is wrong and fabricated. There is no factual basis in this