Bralen V. Ruthie Mitchell's Case

The reporter stated there was an incident when Mrs. Sterling sent a 15 year old boy that Briana wanted to go to homecoming with text messages about her breast. The reporter also stated there was an incident when Mrs. Sterling dropped Briana off at a party she was not invited to because the host did not want to deal with her mother. The reporter stated Briana knew the owners of the home and she was not injured or harm while attending the party. The reporter stated Mrs. Sterling has been witnessed grabbing Briana’s hair, yelling, screaming, and threatening to hit her with a belt when she doesn’t perform her gymnastic stunts correctly. Ms. Barbay stated Mr. Sterling comes into the home drunk and Mrs. Sterling will call the children in a room when the parents are about to fight; the children have to stand in the room to watch their parents fight. Per the reporter, during the fight, Mrs. Sterling will have the children call their paternal grandparents for help. The reporter stated Mr. Sterling’s father is best friend with a local judge in the town that sweeps the family’s dysfunction under the rug. Ms. Barbay stated Mr. Sterling’s father has stated in the past that neither one of the parents deserve the

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

In the infamous Dred Scott V. Sandford case, in 1857, the Supreme Court upheld that no one of the African American race has the ability to sue any United States federal court. Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans were "chattel" and had no rights under a "white man's government". Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise was affirmed unconstitutional, because the Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the Western Territories. Sandford was favored by the Supreme Court, which gave slave owners the right of property, in the Fifth Amendment, including slaves who were bought and sold like property.

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

Facts: Parties: Mitchell (M), Neff (N), Pennoyer (P). Land was sold at an auction to allow M to collect on a judgment he won by default. The judgment arose because N did not pay attorney fees owed to M. M won by default because N did not appear in court. However, M, who lived in Oregon, published notice of the matter in an Oregon newspaper, not in California. N lived in California. The Oregon court placed the judgment against land N owned in Oregon, which was sold to a buyer called P. M was paid from the sale of the property, but years later N sued the buyer to get his land back.

In the case of the State v. Ballew, James Ballew was a patient in the psychiatric ward who made a 911 call stating he and five other people had placed bombs in and around the Seattle airport. When police traced the call, they found out it had been James Ballew who made the threat and the state charged him with making a bomb threat. During his trial, Ballew appealed the court ruling by implying the court violated his First Amendment right of free speech. Although the First Amendment is broad, it does not extend to “true threats” which is what calling in a bomb threat falls under. A true threat basically states that a person makes a statement under circumstances where the intent is to inflict bodily harm or take the life of another person which absolutely applies to Mr. Ballew’s threat and the state cannot allow such statements which can cause fear amongst

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 required that state courts permit the defendant to seek the counsel of an attorney. The court’s decision in the Powell case required that free counsel be given to indigent defendants faced with serious federal offenses. It did not mandate that all indigent persons be given free counsel, only if it was thought that the trial verdict would be unfair without representation. It was not until Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) that the Supreme Court held indigent persons could not be imprisoned without the right to representative counsel. The Powell case enabled the Supreme Court’s decision to be used

I will provide you with my legal opinion and analysis so you can make a qualified decision regarding the charges you face. I will first restate the facts and state my opinion on this particular event. I will do research on certain laws and amendments to see which ones fit your case. Your case is interesting and I do think you have a very strong point within the situation. I am taking on your case which happens to be case #3.

Bob Whitley stood in front of his bathroom mirror and adjusted his red tie. He had to look

In conclusion, taking everything into account, the consideration and intention are presented in the case. The court is able to legally enforce this because Ruth’s company are already in a contract with Marques and were willing to make few changes such as increase his payment. This means the parties intended to be legally bound when the offer was made.

Compensatory: Since the purpose of it is to restore the plaintiff to pre-tort condition, here, the fact that Bruce has suffered considerable harm will be factored in when calculation the amount. Under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s29, the plaintiff is not prevented to sue for damages as a result of psychological harm, nevertheless, s31 limits the harm to a recognised psychiatric illness, Here, if Bruce’s illness is recognised then the court will most likely find Paul liable and Bruce will most likely be awarded damages under s33 of the act.

On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court in accordance with the United States Constitution, the fourteenth amendment, announced that the segregation of public schools is illegal. This is the first time that the United States has declared that the black segregation system is unconstitutional and unlawful. Prior to this, the black and white segregation system has long been affirmed and implemented, in almost all public places; black people are subjected to white segregation and unequal treatment. However, the black people have long been deprived of civil rights, not caused by 1954 Supreme Court’s decision alone. In early September 1957, the US District Court of Little Rock, Arkansas, under the 1954 Supreme Court's decision to abolish apartheid in

The plaintiff, Matthew Stinson, of the law firm Stinson, Stubeck and Jolie L.L.P is involved in a limited partnership with the defendant, Charlotte McMann, the manager and general partner of “Stride Guide” where Matthew is the limited partner. Matthew is bringing suit against Charlotte on the basis of violation of rights of a limited partnership and breach of fiduciary duty in a partnership. Matthew and Charlotte’s partnership certificate agreement did not state anything as to how the partners would share profits and losses, but the certificate did in fact state that Matthew was a limited partner contributing 70% of the necessary capital and that Matthew would be a recipient of a shared portion of any income from licensing of the Stride Guide methodology. When agreeing to a limited partnership, Matthew and Charlotte were both aware that Charlotte would be the general partner therefore “she would be assuming responsibility in the management aspect of the partnership as well as any debts (Cross & Miller, pg. 425).” Although not having rights to participate in management, as a limited partner, Matthew does have the “the right to access the partnership’s books as well as any information regarding the business in the partnership (Cross & Miller pg. 427).” The plaintiff claims that his rights in the partnership were violated as to both share of profits as well as access to the partnership’s books. Given that they had never agreed to set shared amount for

I have received Mr. Burleson response. With no explanation, MSHA does not want to reduce the citation to the amount we should be paying. MSHA proposed settlement of 50% off $5000 which is $2500 is their settlement offer.

The case of Williams v Roffey Bros has presented a strong challenge to the conventional rules of consideration; the leading case regarded as being Stilk v Myrick. Despite this, it has been argued that a decision to retreat from the traditional approach has not had a momentous impact on the doctrine of consideration and therefore has encountered criticism, as well as