Case Analysis : The Case Sub Judice

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

I feel that this case was somewhat representative of what was discussed in the textbook. The forensics aspects of this case were generally different from the impression of forensics I received from reading the textbook. Despite this fact, I feel that the investigative techniques of this case were similar to what was discussed in the textbook, as well as what has been discussed during lecture.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Since Gideon was proceeding without funds, it gave the Justice a chance to think about the constitution. He appointed a counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments. Should this Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady be reconsidered?”

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

On November 2, 2000 Erma Stewart was arrested along with twenty six others because authorities were under the suspicion that they had been involved with the distribution of an illegal substance. Stewart was jailed and had her bond set to $70,000. She was then appointed a public defender to handle her case. However, Stewart claims that the attorney pressured her into pleading guilty despite her insistence that she was innocent. After spending a month in jail with the knowledge that her children had no to look after them, due to her being a single parent, Stewart conceded and plead guilty to the charges. She was made to pay a fine of $1,000 and was sentenced to 10 years of probation.

I think that the trial went good,i think that the defensive side had the most credible evidence.The defensive side won the case,i also think that the defensive side used or presented more evidence because they had more things to use against bill and sam and bill,sam,or the prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove that red chief was really the one who was doing the kidnapping.i think the verdict was fair because i think that the jury voted fairly,and based their votes or opinion on how they really felt or how they looked at the situation.

In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that” stare decisis is not an inexorable command”. Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was “inexorable command”.

For the mock trial I was assigned to be one of the prosecuting attorneys. After being presented with case materials which included facts of the case, statements from both prosecuting and defense witnesses, penal code for the alleged charges, and map of the crime scene, we as a group decided to create one Google Drive document. There we would upload our parts of the case and help other group members with their assignments.

Tanya is a 21-year-old African American female who was referred by Southern Psychiatric Unit after she called 911 as a result of beings annoyed with her family and co-workers. She complained that her employer puts her in places to do paperwork and not giving her 70 hours a week. They were cutting her hours from 10 to 6 a day. She reported that she was feeling suicidal when she called 911. Prior to calling 911, Tanya reported that her baby father Derrick is in her brain singing and rapping all of the time. She reported that Derrick works at Taco Bell. She reports that she had to have sex with Derrick in order to quiet down his voice; however, if she has sex with others, the voices would get louder.

The court also stated that when a suit is terminated in a way that indicates the accused was innocent of wrongdoing it constitutes a favorable termination and that “...Termination prior to trial on the merits is favorable if it “reflects on the merits of the matter” Frey, 722 P.2d at 279 (quoting Minasian v. Sapse, 80 Cal.App.3d at 827, 145 Cal.Rptr. at 832). This would require trying a case within a case to determine the outcome. The final decision on what is a favorable termination is decided by the judge and any vagueness surrounding the termination of the prior proceedings is determined by the factfinder. Since the court determined there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to the details regarding the termination of the prior proceedings due to: (1) the confusing nature of the termination, and (2) the conflicting judgments entered, the case was remanded to resolve these issues.