Edd V. Julian Case Study

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.

Victim’s Summary: Linda said she filed for PO-17-421 on Wenesday, November 29th, 2017 against James. Linda said James had drove by her home loacted at 35156 West 21st Street in Mannford on Wenesday, Novemeber 29th, 2017. Linda said the road to her home is on a dead end street and James did not have a reason to be by the home. Linda was trying to file a violation of protective order report over the phone on Thursdat, November 30th, 2017. Linda said she recieved a missed call from James on Thursday, November 30th, 2017. Linda said she had James served on Wenesday, Novemeber 29th, 2017 by the Sapulpa Police when James was in Sapulpa.

Counselor red flagged pt. and requested that he meet for brief TX intervention to discuss his current counseling non-compliance status and explaining the risk of discharge from the program if he fails to do an individual session by 1/22/17. AMS receptionist told this writer that pt. is asking why he needs to meet with this writer. This writer told him to inform him that if he fails to complete one hour individual session by 1/22/17 he will be subject for a TX discharge. Pt. refused to meet with this writer and he failed to schedule an individual session on the above date.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

He reports the patient’s roommate was subsequently evicted from his home after the landlord inquired about the ambulance visiting. He reports he contacted her father concerning the patient residing within the family home, but the father has said no. In addition, he reports he has attempted to contact her uncle but has been unable to make contact with him. He reports he has attempted to make contact with her said friend who is considering allowing her the opportunity to reside with her but she has not answered her phone and he has been unable to leave a voice message. He reports no one wants her in their home, and the patient has “burned her bridges” with family members. He reports her family would benefit from counseling. In addition, he reports her family has high expectations of CPS. He reports her current case was not going to close within 12 days of 06/30/2017. In addition, the case will not

D-This writer met with the patient as he was placed on HOLD to address the status of the IOP. The patient provided this writer a paper that was provided to him with listing of IOP for him to explore. The paper shows scribbles of the patient taking down notes about his attempts of who he called. The patient reports Connecticut Addiction Recovery will call him back within 24-48 hours. The patient was able to schedule an appointment with New Direction for May 20th at 7pm; patient spoke with Dan. This writer commends the patient for all of his efforts; however, the patient needs to schedule something earlier than May 20th. This writer asked the patient about ICRC-Coventry House. According to the patient, he called the contact number and showed proof. The patient reports that ICRC gave him two different number and told him to do a walk-in at 8:30am. This writer shared with the patient about a recent conversation this writer had with ICRC. This writer told the patient

On 9/15/2016, CM met with the client for Bi-Weekly ILP Review. Client was dressed appropriately for the weather. She was well groomed. As usual client in the meeting was loquacious, and loud. Client continues to be hostile towards this worker. Client continues to repeat to this worker as quote: "I am not mad with you, and this has nothing to do with you. It's all about DHS and your supervisor." Client was hostile due to an Authorization of Release Form client signed for staff to contact her therapist Dr. Iris Yankelevich for a copy of the client psychosocial and psychiatrist evaluations. Client continues to report that she didn’t signed the Authorization of Release Form because the form stated that the form is for HRA 2010e and she doesn’t know how many time she need to repeat herself that she doesn’t meet the ‘CRITERAI FOR SRO”. CM tries to explain to the client that staff is requesting a copy of her psychosocial and psychiatrist evaluation, but then client continue to talk over CM and threat to contact the Coalition and DHS. Client continues to set in her way and refuses to work with staff to meet her unmet needs. CM observed that the client walk with a book bags and a small shopping cart. Client reported she walk with all her documents and letters from Adult Protective Services & Social Security Administration stating that she is capable of living independently.

This officer has had contact via face to face and phone with the mother, Ms. Evelyn Edwards. Discussions have taken place with her regarding Marquel’s Comprehensive Re-Entry Case Plan. She has participated in a video conference with Marquel since his commitment. She is aware of his placement in the Virginia Beach CPP Program. She has not visited him at the facility, but she has had contact with him via phone. She is currently unemployed. Upon Marquel’s release from DJJ, the anticipated parole plan (CRCP) will be for him to return to her home with intensive supportive services via 294 funding. Additionally, in the event this placement is no longer available, an alternative placement will be sought via 294 funding for a group home placement or

On July 6, 2015, I was assigned this case to follow up. This case involves Mr. Tavon Lanier a fourteen year old male. Mr. Lanier’s mother, Ashauta Lanier reported her son ran away on July 4, 2015. On July 7, 2015, I spoke to Mr. Don Earlington Intake Officer of the Court Service Unit. He confirmed an active detention order for Mr. Lanier. Mr. Earlington confirmed previous runaway events and additional incidents in Maryland where Mr. Lanier had taken a handgun to school. Mr. Lanier’s current Probation Officer is Macalister.

Re: Whether the trial court acted appropriately in excusing Mr. Eldridge form paying $3,500 accrued in child support.

I, Jason Tison, am writing this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

You will locate background information on OLMSTEAD V. L. C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999), otherwise known as “The Olmstead Decision.”The Internet resources you find in this course will lead you to enough information to adequately answer these questions. You may also do independent research to locate informational websites about this case.

The client is a 14-year-old Hispanic female in a residential substance abuse treatment rehabilitation center. The client participated in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy anger management group. The client was admitted to the residential program in July of 2016 for her cannabis use. She was referred by Drug Court due to her failure to comply with the program rules. The client has a past of domestic violence and defiant behavior towards her mother and not abiding by curfew.

The client is a 26 year old, single, male, African American. He is an active duty ship’s serviceman seaman serving in the United States Navy, aboard the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3). Seaman (SN) Fisher is residing on board the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) that is permanently stationed at San Diego Naval Base, 32nd Street in California. SN Fisher was given orders to report to Navy Mental Health Services Department on base as Involuntary Command Referral for diagnosis and treatments, to get an evaluation and expert psychiatric recommendation about whether the service member is mentally fit to stay in the United States Navy. SN Fisher is unwilling to begin counseling,

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 1974 address mootness and how certain cases can be dismissed if the dispute that was present during the filing of the lawsuit has been resolved through a change in the law or a mutual agreement between the two parties was reached. Mootness is one of five justiciability doctrines and can result in a lawsuit being non-justiciable if the Court decides the dispute is no longer live. If happens, then the Court will throw out the case in accordance with the Case or Controversy Clause. A modern day example would entail the police raiding a suspected drug dealer’s place of residency. The police search and seize cash and a vehicle belonging to this suspected drug dealer. The victim, who is in fact not a drug dealer, sues the city