Case Analysis : ' Newton V. Diamond '

in many of the previous court cases, the rulings have been linked to a Case Law that was made in

Facts: Stephen R. Newton (Newton) was an employee of Henderson City as a police officer. Newton had been assigned to the DEA in October 1987 until he resigned in 1991. Newton claims he was not compensated for all the overtime hours he worked as a Task Force Officer. The city of Henderson entered an agreement with the DEA to remain Newton’s employer consequently rendering them responsible for “establishing the salary benefits including overtime of the Henderson Police Department officer assigned to the Task Force, and making all payments due.” Prior to 1990, Newton had not received authority from the City to work any overtime.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

California courts use their own citation style contained in the California Style Manual, or Gold Book. California style rearranges the elements of a citation and has different rules for abbreviations, spacing, punctuation, and short

Roper v. Simmons was a supreme court case that was decided in 2004 which dealt with whether it is against the constitution, and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, the execute someone who is under the age of 18. This case was particularly important as it dealt with something that many people were against entirely: the death penalty. A variation of this issue was decided nearly twenty years earlier in Thompson v. Oklahoma when it was decided in a five-to-three ruling that it was not constitutional to execute anyone under the age of 16. There have also been many other landmark cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain parties such as in Atkins v. Virginia which was decided just three

Similar to the aforementioned case, Kevin n. Stanford v. Missouri, this story involves a young man by the name of Christopher Simmons as well as two other young men, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer. At the time of the incident Simmons was still a junior high school, he was 17 years of age, Charles Benjamin was 15 years of age and John Tessmer was then 16. Simmons encouraged both Benjamin and Tessmer to assist him with committing murder. Records indicate that Simmons was in fact the instigator of the crime. Simmons plan was to “commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge.” Simmons assured both Benjamin and Tessmer that once the crime was committed they could “get away with it”

I believe the constitutional reason of the holding in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford was unfair and unconstitutional in which CJ Taney decision ruled in favor of Sanford and therefore, failed to recognize the rights of the people to be free.

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

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.

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.

In Buck v. Bell in 1927 a decision was made by the United States Supreme Court stating they allowed state enforced sterilization. This court decision was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr., in which the Court ruled and controlled that a state figure or statue allowing forced sterilization of the unhealthy, counting the intellectually disabled, while considering the protection and well-being of the state. Meaning, it would not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, this agreement was broadly recognized as a ratification and approval of negative eugenics. The attempt to develop the human race by getting rid of “defectives” or “unfit” people from the gene pool. In fact, the Supreme Court has not at any time expressly reversed or overturned the case of Buck v. Bell.

Statement of the Case This case is about an innovative author who independently wrote a children’s fantasy book. Meg Murry is being accused of copyright infringement of the children’s fantasy fiction book Hatching Magic, published May 2015. Murry completed the first chapter of Magic Hatching in March 2015 and completed the book by July 2015. Like most children’s book of this genre, both take you into a fantasyland with castles, dragons, wizards, and moral to the story.

Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”