Claggett V. Stout Case Summary

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

Jan Hughes, Plaintiff-Appellant v, Boston Scientific corporation, Defendant-Apellee., 631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011)

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

Further defining what is required for a complaint to be sufficient, Sutton establishes that, “detailed fact-pleading is no longer required. A pleading complies with the rule if it gives sufficient notice of the events or transactions which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to understand the nature of it and the basis for it.” Id. at 104. The court provided the rational for only requiring such notice by indicating how the “opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.” Id. at 102.

ROSENBERGER ET AL. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. 515 U.S. 819 (1995)

At the administrative hearing, the Department’s evidence was entered into the hearing record without objection. The Department’s Representative objected to the Appellant’s Exhibit A-1 being entered into the hearing record as evidence because the Department asked the Appellant if she had additional medical documentation that had not previously been provided and the Appellant indicated that she did not. The Appellant agreed that she did tell the Department’s Representative that she had no other medical information because she “did not understand the question”. The ALJ finds that the Department’s objection to Exhibit A-1 is overruled. Since Exhibit A-1 is verification from a credible source and verifies the Appellant’s

The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.

Alves v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. 804 F3.d 1149 (11th Cir. 2015)

227 Kan. 780; 610 P. 2d 580; 1980 Kan. LEXIS 280; 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1362

THE THE APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND ARGUMENTS NUMBERED IV-VI ARE BACKED BY EVIDENCE CONTAINED ON THE RECORD. EVEN SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WERE PROVIDED BY OPPOSING

Defendants’ Response claims the Defendants will be “substantially prejudiced” by an or-der of dismissal, but do not provide any identification of what that prejudice would be or how the prejudice would rise to the level of the loss of any substantial right. Since the Defendants have not identified any “legal prejudice,” or met their burden of showing any “plain legal prejudice” resulting from the requested dismissal, the Court is without grounds to deny the

A decision of a federal trial court-Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Carasca v. Pomeroy, 313 F.3d 828, 832-33 (3d Cir. 2002)

Summary of Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62L. Ed. 1101 (1918)

Professors Julio J. Rotemberg and John T. Gourville prepared this case. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are