Christine V. Leonard's Case Against Leonard

We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time

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).

n some states, studies have been conducted as a result of court cases where the plainti

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

As questioning continued, she was asked about specific crimes that she had been accused of committing. After the testimony had been taken from

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

Judge Harlan’s Dissent is a written response about the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision. In the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, Homer Plessy argued that his decision to break the Louisiana Separate Car Act was denying his rights in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the majority decision debunked his arguments. However, Judge Harlan’s Dissent explains his reasoning for disagreeing with the majority. His opinions were likely intended to be heard by all citizens of the United States, but it seems as though he is aiming the disagreement at the people in the majority who is against it in order to prove his point. First, Judge Harlan points out that Plessy is right that the Constitution defends his rights to sit in a car with a

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

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.

Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle, Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion, titled "Pepsi Stuff," attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign, PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the ‘Pepsi Generation,' in order to gain the largest possible response to help push their campaign. One such commercial shows a well dressed teenager preparing for school simultaneously advertising a t-shirt, leather jacket and sunglasses for various reasonable point values. As the scene

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

Decision in Philadelphia was design to provide a close up information about the origins of the constitutions. From the points of view of the basic questions of human spirit and the relations of society to the government in general of the 55 delegates and what they sought to accomplish. Casting many of the Founding Fathers in a new light, reminding us that they were human, and not gods, “The writers of the American Constitution were not Angles” (page 306). Thus, sometimes giving unnecessary information about the delegates, overall it helps the reader to identify their prospective and what they sought to accomplish, and with different characters of the delegates, they wouldn’t agree in a lot of topic, making compromises which will beneficiate

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to