Gagnon V. Coombs: Case Study

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.

Burns v. Gagnon, is a Virginia Supreme Court case merging from Gloucester High School bullying incident that took place in 2006. Participants of the case include all justices present within the circuit court, Avery Waterman Jr., of Newport News for Gregory J. Gagnon (student victimized of bullying) appellee and James Newsome (student bullying Gagnon) appellant (No. 110767), and John A. Conrad of Richmond for appellant (No. 110754) and Travis Burns (GHS Assistant Principal) appellee. Former student Gregory J. Gagnon of Gloucester High School, filed a revised complaint asserting claims for simple and gross negligence against Assistant Principal Travis Burns, and assault and battery

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

Before PTSD became an official diagnosis, various other traumatic stress syndromes such as dissociative flashbacks and survivor guilt were used as criminal defenses for both violent/nonviolent crimes as well as a basis for successful insanity defenses. Initially PTSD raised concerns about its potential misuse in criminal courts, however, there were certain incidences where PTSD was found to be a legitimate phenomenon. Case in point, New Jersey v Cocuzza (1981). In this case, the defendant was a Vietnam veteran who was found not guilty for reason of insanity when he assaulted a police officer. Mr. Cocuzza’s defense was that at the time of the incident, he believed that he was attacking enemy soldiers. His claims were supported by the officer when he testified that Mr. Cocuzza was holding a stick as if it were a rifle.

Capt. Charles Chubb 160 E. 7th Street, Chester Pa. 19013 (484) 645-5817 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Chubb, provided the following information:

Procedural History: This case began as a suit brought by Dr. Harold Glucksberg, a Washington State physician, with several of his colleagues, a number of their patients who were terminally ill, and the non-profit organization Compassion in Dying, against the State of Washington as represented by its Attorney General. The suit, which was filed in federal district court, challenged the constitutionality of a Washington law that prohibited anyone from promoting or assisting another to attempt suicide. The district court agreed with Dr. Glucksberg and declared the law unconstitutional. The State of Washington appealed the district court’s decision to the Court of Appeals to

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

FACTS: A Michigan resident was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law school, even though she had a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on the LSAT. Barbara Grutter sued the school alleging that they had discriminated against her based on her race, which would be in violation of her constitutional rights. The University of Michigan Law School argued that there is a state interest to not have a “critical mass” of students of a given race; so that minorities do not feel isolated.

One would think that as a business person you should be allowed to distribute flyers as advertisements to people, and possible customers or consumers on the streets. Well, in April of 1942 a business man in Florida found himself facing charges for advertising his business using paper flyers. The Supreme Court did not consider whether or not commercial speech deserved First Amendment protection unit the Valentine v. Chrestensen case.(pg. 229) In Valentine v. Chrestensen, “The respondent, a citizen of Florida, owns a former United States Navy submarine which he exhibits for profit. In 1940 he brought it to New York City and moored it at a State pier in the East River. He prepared and printed a handbill advertising the boat and soliciting visitors

Ethical, policy and commercial considerations had to be taken care of significantly while making the decision.

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

Justice Gibson dissented; arguing against Justice Marshall’s adopting the power of judicial review for the Court and instead suggesting that the power to correct unconstitutional laws should remain with Congress.

In Milroy, the deceased executed a deed, which used wrong formality, to set up a trust of shares in favour of his niece. The niece argued that

It is to be noted that in Re Montagu the recipient was a volunteer , that is, who gave no consideration for the transfer of title so he could not count as equity’s darling. In Akindele by contrast the defendant had given consideration under a valid contract for the assets he received. Should it be ‘unconscionable’ for a volunteer to retain the benefit of his receipt being one who paid nothing for what he received in breach of trust where as under a valid contract a defence of bona fide purchaser will always apply to commercial dealings.