Generally, “any person who is prevented from practicing his profession or trade for a period of time in an area in which it has been practiced, suffers some hardship. However, the Raimonde test requires more than just some hardship.” Williams v. Hobbs, 460 N.E.2d 287, 293 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). The court will likely find that there would be undue hardship on Dr. Williams if the NCC is enforced. The court will evaluate several factors in determining whether undue hardship would result. One factor is whether Dr. Williams would be barred from practicing her specialty. See Hobbs, 460 N.E.2d 287 (NCC barring former employee from practicing specialty in entire region imposed undue hardship). The second factor that courts will evaluate is that Dr.
David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.
FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.
After the end of the Civil War, the state of Georgia believed they deserved 35 million acres of land, so they claimed those 35 million acres of land from the Yazoo river which belong to the Native Americans. So basically, the land was kind of stolen. In the year 1795, the state legislator for Georgia sold those 35 million acre of state land to 4 private land companies for the price of 1.5 cent per acre. In 1796, a new legislator for Georgia found out that the previous legislators of Georgia who voted to sell parcels of the 35 million acres of land were stockholders in the companies that sold the land. The legislator also discovered that they were bribed in helping to re-sell the land for a higher amount while committing fraud and corruption.
Facts of the case: Robert Anthony Williams, also known as Anthony Erthel Williams, escaped from a mental hospital and briefly lived at the YMCA located in Des Moines, Iowa. Soon after, on Christmas Eve in 1968, a 10-year old girl had disappeared from that YMCA while at her brother’s wrestling match. A boy in the parking lot saw Mr. Williams carrying a large bundle to his car with two “skinny” and “white” legs inside of it.
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
Pamela Powers on December 24, 1968 was kidnapped from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa and then murdered. A 14-year-old boy reported having had helped Robert Anthony Williams (defendant) car door and said he saw two skinny and white legs. His car and Pamela’s clothing were found the next day. William was found two days later in a town 70 miles away. During transport one of the officers inculcated William to tell them where to find the body in order for the child’s parents to have a Christian burial. William gave in and led them to the body consequently admitting to knowledge of the crime. In that same day (December 26), the Iowa
United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the
Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).
Texas v. Johnson took place in 1989. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the burning of an American flag is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The case originated after Johnson burned the United States flag during a protest. Johnson was arrested, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his case to the appeals court in Texas but lost. Johnson’s case then went to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas which lead to the overturning of Johnson’s conviction.
Sophia Papa Jessie Williams Opinion Piece The case of The People v. Jessie Williams stands as a landmark case in the American Judicial system, and the lawfulness of the criminal justice system as we know it. Jessie Williams faced a particularly harsh sentencing of three and a half to seven years in prison for the assault of the defendant, Denise Moore, despite his claim of innocence. The outcome of this case left a lingering question on the effectiveness of the current American judicial system in actually delivering justice lawfully and certainly. There's a complex mix of factors that played key parts in the build of this case leading to Jessie's eventual incarceration, but did this sentence serve justice for either party, Denise Moore our victim, or Jessie Williams our
Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards
In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.
It is unlikely for Computin to be able to successfully suppress the evidence against him considering any avenue he could take would all be invalidated under the FISA Amendments act, specifically Section 702. One such avenue is claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Under the Fourth Amendment one can expect a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that is both subjective and objective. If Computin expected his laptop to be private and if society would also agree that such privacy is reasonable, he can claim that the court violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. Many cases have seen people try but fail to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legal case of Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress evidence that was obtained without a warrant, citing his Fourth Amendment rights that prevented warrantless searches. Even though this was a physical procedure that is different from the manner in which
The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.
In the case of Olmstead v. United States, the legal questions raised at the trial were whether the use of evidence gained from wiretaps and confiscated papers violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and whether the use of evidence gained from wiretaps and confiscated papers violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination? The Federal courts held that the use of wiretaps did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the Supreme Court upheld the argument that there was a clear distinction between letters and phone conversations and tapping of phone conversations cannot be held against anyone without their expressed consent (www.fjc.gov).