Co-Owners And Hannon Case Study

It is the government’s ordained and foremost right to provide its citizens with reliable protection and security, especially in the face of an emergency. However, the government’s failure to provide equitable care, causing damage, injury, or death, results in legal negligence, or a person not acting to their given standard resulting in damage. In the case of Riss v. The City of New York, Linda Riss experienced negligent conduct from the New York City police department when, after she was repeatedly threatened by a rejected suitor, they did nothing to protect her until after she was mutilated with acid. With protection and ongoing investigation, Riss would have been kept safe under the responsibility that the police failed to adhere to.

stated that all four boys had been drinking; and that the defendant was outnumbered 4 to 1. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the defendant’s belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable. Id. The court found that evidence showed that the respondent tried to avoid a confrontation and made repeated efforts to flee. Id. The court also stated that the defendant’s fears were well founded and borne out by the appearance and conduct of Gale’s four companions and by the fact that the boys were in no way discouraged by the defendant’s gun. Id. The State’s evidence was that the shots were fired in rapid succession. The State did not establish a sufficient interval between the shots which would have allowed the defendant to realize he was no longer in danger. Id. The court held that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent did not act in

found unconstitutional. The court believed that a law enforcement officer isn't expected to question whether every statute passed by legislation is constitutional or not (Lippman, 422). Lastly, the court case Maryland v. Garrison, the court ruled that evidence discovered by law enforcement officers with a warrant would be allowed in court even if officers searched out of the area that was allowed by the warrant. In the court case, 6 law enforcement officers were given a search warrant that allowed them to search a single apartment unit located on the third floor. Officers began searching the third floor and saw two apartments that were open. Once officer began to search both apartments they realized that the third floor was divided into two

Issue: Whether the burning of three separate apartments within one apartment building offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.

When comparing the gunshot crime rates of all of 13 off campus apartment complexes at East Carolina University, there is a common correlation between the distances they are off campus, to the rate of gunshots reported for most complexes. The farther a complex is located off campus, the higher the gunshot crime rate is, in most cases. This information comes from the Greenville Police Department’s database of reported police calls for service of these apartments and their crime coverage over the last four years.

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

By shooting her husband, the Defendant is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summer’s injury of situational anxiety and psychological hysteria. In order to show that a defendant is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must show that there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendants conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. Rickstad v. Holmberg, 456 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1969). There are two elements in displaying the casual connection. First, plaintiff must show that the defendant’s action is the cause in fact plaintiff’s injury. Second, plaintiff must show that the defendant is the legal cause of her

Citing common law which states a landlord is not liable to a tenant for physical harm caused by a hazardous condition after the tenant took possession. This was

On January 1, 2011, Mary Brown (victim) went jogging at 7:00 pm on the route she had been taking for six months and passing the usual houses. Upon reaching 123 Roper Street, a man, John Smith (defendant) ran out, tackled her to the ground, jumped on top of her, and eventually pinned her down. Then the defendant, using a box cutter, stabbed the victim in the face, making a five-inch gash just below her left eye. While cutting the victim, the defendant stated, “I watch you run by here every day and I wave hello to you from my window, but you never wave back. You think you are too pretty to wave at me, well now you will not be pretty anymore.” The defendant’s neighbor, Mike Jones, witnessed the attack and heard everything from his yard, but was too afraid to stop the attack. John Smith has been charged with aggravated malicious wounding.

In reviewing this case, we believe that the defense is more valid than the prosecutors in this case. The evidence that was presented from the defense in this case carries a significant amount of weight that helped to draw us to the conclusion that Michael is innocent and that the event was just an unfortunate accident. As a jury, we reviewed the defenses owl theory, their take on the peterson’s financial situation, and their explanation of a possible burglary occurring in the home during the time of the incident. We found the evidence to be very compelling, effective, and notable in its defense of Michael Peterson. Going forward, we will try to use the information obtained to prove his innocence in the court of

When discussing the issue of combining inchoate offenses with an underlying completed offense, it is necessary to distinguish between conspiracy and other types of inchoate crimes. The standard for Inchoate Offenses often results in confusion due to the different criteria that apply to various kinds of inchoate offenses. Except for conspiracy, both attempt and solicitation offenses are merged into the target crime if a conviction is made. However, the conspiracy is lawfully punished as a related yet distinct crime. According to current inchoate laws, it is reasonable to punish an offender for conspiracy as well as the target offense. In the case of Carroll v Maryland, the court found the defendant apparently responsible for an attempted armed

Martin is a joint tenant with a right of survivorship with his friends Peter, John, and Thomas. All of them have passed away, and Martin has not been back to the property in more than 20 years. Consequently, Peter indicated in his will that he was leaving his interest in the property to his son Andrew. Andrew has taken a personal loan out and used his part of the interest in the property as collateral. The lender has initiated a legal action to foreclose on the property. Unfortunately, this type of property co-ownership is known as joint tenancy with rights of survivorship and the portion of the interest that is now owned by Andrew, in fact, can be attached by creditors. Andrew’s father, Peter, left his share of

We are all summoned here today to discuss the case involving Ms. Janie Wood and whether she is held responsible for the death of Mr. Vergible Woods. This case revolves around the occasion of a hurricane that struck the Everglades a few days ago. A massive wave of water hit the home of the Woods and while swimming in the water, Mr. Woods was bitten on the cheek by a rabid dog. A few days later, Dr. Simmons diagnoses Mr. Woods with rabies. Due to the disease, Mr. Woods had become aggressive and was about to shoot Ms. Woods, but he misses and Ms. Woods shoots a bullet at Mr. Woods, resulting in his death. Through the evidence and testimonies presented, the jury finds the defendant not guilty.

Criminal cases can every hard to understand or they can be very easy once you move past all of the technical vocabulary it becomes easier. Its a good idea to learn how to read and write as well as understand each case and its own uniqueness. This paper is intended to help us analyze and break down the case of Kennedy v. State. In this case Mr. Kennedy has appealled for the conviction of arson. He feels there is not enough of evidence to be charged.

In this case there are multiple people whose interests must be taken into account. Bens four co-workers, his boss Mary Jenks, the creditors to whom Ben owes money and Ben himself all hold moral standing. However, while all of Ben’s co-workers hold moral standing he plans to specifically frame Sue Macdonald for the theft which must be taken into account.