Case Study Of Winstead V. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v. Barbara Winston. On October 17, 2016, in Scott County Circuit Court, Barbara Winston (Winston) pled guilty to one count of obtaining money by false pretense, one count of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretense, one count of Medicaid fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit Medicaid fraud. She was sentenced to five years, with five years suspended, and an indefinite period of probation on each count. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. She was also ordered to pay $6,845.97 in restitution, excluded from being a Medicaid provider for 10 years, sentenced to 50 hours of community service and to pay $250 court costs. Winston was hired by her Medicaid eligible mother to provide attendant care and respite

The city of New London was in an economic depression and came up with a plan to buy properties and make it commercial, residential and a recreational element to it. They city was able to buy most of the properties but some landowners refused to sell their property. So the city used element of domain power to take the property. Kelo one of the landowners decided to sue. Their main argument was that the cities plan didn’t involve public use, which is what element of domain is used for. The Supreme Court ruled that the cities plan had public benefit so they upheld the cities decision to use element of domain and took the property.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Representative Trent Franks(R) Arizona, 8th asserted that the United States Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London threatens property rights. Consequently, Congress must remedy the effects of the Court’s decision by actively protecting small businesses, and homeowners. The Kelo decision ruled that the government’s decision to take property for the purpose of private economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the government did not provide just compensation to the property owners, thus, ignoring the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Further, Franks cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s principal dissent with the majority’s

In the case State v. Ellis, Central State University RA discovered marijuana in the defendant’s dorm room while they were conducting an authorized, unannounced safety inspection. Campus police officers were then 19 notified and went to the room.While the campus police did not participate in the search, they were present in the room at the resident assistants’ invitation. The Ellis court concluded that the seizure of the marijuana was unconstitutional. It found that while the resident assistants’ search was authorized under the university’s policies and procedures, the later police entry into the room was unlawful because it was made without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. This case would be beneficial to Deary Jones because it

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

2. In Meyers v. Commonwealth, Meyers argued that the court misused its discretion by allowing his wife to testify. He said that his act of pointing a gun at his wife was a privileged conversation. The court did misuse its discretion based on the law, but the court’s decision to allow his wife to testify was a harmless error.

In U.S. v. Windsor a same-sex couple (Windsor and Spyer) who met in 1963 and had been dating ever since registered as domestic partners in 1993 in New York. Worried about Spyer’s failing health they went to Canada to get married in 2007. In 2009 Spyer died and left everything to Windsor. At the time DOMA denied federal recognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a).

There have been many questions and concerns leading to court cases regarding federalism and state rights. Most frequently the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments interpretation plays a pivotal role in these cases. The tenth amendments are powers reserved for the states that are not expressed in the Constitution. The eleventh amendment protects states from getting sued by citizens. The cases Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), Nevada v Hibbs and Alden v Maine will showcase if the Supreme Court has been consistent when dealing with federalism and states rights.

United States Supreme Court voted on Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, was a case in which the United States nullified the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional the President Jackson disagreed. S0, the Trail of Tears happened which was a series of forced relocation of Native American nations in the United States following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The removal included members of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern U.S. to an area west of the Mississippi River that had been designated as Indian Territory. On May 26, 1830,

Another case dealt with a man, whose identity was stolen, and someone using his name when they were arrested. The man was fired from his three jobs and went down to the courts to find out what the issue was. He made the mistake of immediately getting on Judge Torres’ bad side by asking her to “be quiet” as he talked to his attorney. The court reporter explained that this man was already in custody for stolen property, but this was clearly not the case. There was also an inconsistency with the picture on his ID and with the social security number he presented

In the case of the State v. Wells, Defendant Paul Ellis Wells was charged with a DUI in California for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana and causing serious bodily injury to three other victims. At first glance, this case seems obvious that the defendant’s negligence at the wheel was caused by him being intoxicated. Further research shows that the defendant was diagnosed by a doctor as being prediabetic. In my opinion, the actus reus elements of the crime of DUI would be that the defendant did test positive for marijuana in a blood test conducted which in any state would be considered a DUI because it is obviously a crime to operate a motor vehicle under any substance that can alter your mind. On the other hand,

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.