Blue Meadow Court Case Study

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

On 09/11/16 at 5:57pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 841 Crevis Lane on a possible nuisance dog; dog still at large, threat to safety. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant John Haywood. Mr. Haywood stated that he was going to his vehicle to put his daughter car set in when the neighbor’s dog came from behind him and started growling and barking at him. Mr. Haywood ran into the garage to get away. He contacted Franklin County Animal Care and Control due to the dog being previously designated dangerous. Mr. Haywood recorded the dog loose near his vehicle. I advised Mr. Haywood if he know if the dog was still loose, Mr. Haywood was unsure. I advised him I will need to check with the dog owners to make sure the dog has return home and I will return to talk to him.

On 08/26/16 at 1:48pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 900 Block of Heyl Ave when I saw a black and white Chihuahua running loose with no known dog owner around. I followed the dog to 969 Heyl Ave where dog owner Donna Hanes open the door and let the dog inside. Ms. Hanes stated that the dog must have gotten loose when it was in the back yard. I asked Ms. Hanes if her dog was current on dog license and vaccinations, Ms. Hanes stated he was not. I issued Ms. Hanes violations for failure to license and failure to vaccinate her dog name Tito.

On 09/04/17, at approximately 8:27pm I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 5841 Riverton Road, on a dog at large, known owner. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant Bonnie Fisher. Ms. Fisher stated a dog residing 5833 Riverton Road is loose in the area. Ms. Fisher stated that this is not the first incident of the dog being loose. I drove to the above stated address, I knocked on the door and received no answer. I walked to the side of 5837 and 5833 Riverton Road, as I did a pit bull (brown/white) came from the backyard of 5833 Riverton Road towards me. The pit bull approached me off leash and off property. I utilized my snare pole to capture the pit bull, I guided the pit bull to my vehicle. Realizing the pit bull was not acting aggressively, I took off the snare pole and placed a leash around the pit bull. I returned to the backyard of 5833 Riverton Rd, and saw a terrier (brown/black) in a small cage. I did not see any current dog license on

P alleges temporary loss of his dog and false arrest. P alleges he was holding his dog on a leash on the street when MOS grabbed and threw him to the ground causing P to let go of the leash. P alleges that the dog lunged towards defendant MOS and MOS shot at the dog. P alleges that he was cuffed and taken to the precinct and defendant MOS took his dog to an animal dog as a lost dog. P alleges that he had to pay $280 to retrieve his dog back. P alleges that MOS did not allow his tied his dog up. P alleges that the criminal charges were, later, dismissed. No other information is known about the case. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco, played in this

On 06/20/17 at 1:50pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 2100 Block of Lynbridge Drive when I saw a brindle/white pit bull running loose in the area. I took pictures of the dog loose. I exited my vehicle and chase the pit bull to the backyard of a fence in house. I placed a leash on the pit bull and put her in my vehicle. The pit bull had no identifying tags to indicate ownership. I transported the dog to the Franklin County Animal Shelter (FCACC). Dog owner Devon Gordon redeemed the dog on 06/24/17. Ms. Gordon did not show proof of dog license or vaccinations. I issued Ms. Gordon violations for failure to license, failure to vaccinate and failure to control her dog name Baby.

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

On 10/03/17, at approximately 7:35am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to the area of 5232 Freedom Ridge Drive on a dog at large, patrol only. I arrived in the area and saw a pit bull (brown/white) matching the description of the dog running loose at the above listed address. I stopped my vehicle and proceeded to check the address where the dog was at. The pit bull was tied up at that location. At that moment a unknown female came outside and headed towards her car. I pulled up and asked if the pit bull belong to her. She stated that her son who resides at that location is holding the pit bull for a friend, but that the friend left without indicating what to do with the pit

On 11/22/16, at 4:02pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to the 600 block of Bedford Ave on dog at large patrol only. I arrived in the area and saw two dogs, one a small mix breed black and white and a tan and white pit bull, in the front of 681 Bedford Ave. I exited my vehicle and slowly approached the house. I knocked on the dog. Dog owner Robin Holmes-Muhammad answered the door. I asked if the two dogs on her porch belong to her, she stated that they did. I advised Ms. Holmes-Muhammad that we received a complaint that the dogs were running loose. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad apologized and took both dogs inside the house. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad stated that the tan/white pit bull does not really belong to her it was on her front porch

I agree with the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that Erin was under “duress” when she signed the prenuptial agreement.

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

In November 17th 2016, I have visited the Superior Court Central Courthouse of San Diego and attended two appellate civil cases. The first and the main case I will discuss in my paper has the title of Felczer vs Apple Inc. and the second has the title of Notman vs. Millers towing company.

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?