Lisa V. Guerrero Street Case Study

On November 25, 1999, The Coast Guard rescued 5 year old Elian Gonzalez from the Atlantic Ocean. Elian was found on an inner tube clinging to life with dehydration and hypothermia. His mother, Elisabeth Brotons, along with several others drowned on their trip from Cuba. The INS placed Plaintiff with his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Florida. On November 27, 1999, Plaintiff's father, Juan Gonzalez, sent a letter to the Cuban government requesting that his son be in Cuba. The letter stated that the Plaintiff was taken out of Cuba without his father’s consent. On November 29, 1999, Lazaro Gonzalez signed and submitted an application for asylum to the INS on behalf of Elian. Shortly after, another application was submitted with Elian’s signature.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

Hernandez V. Texas is based in the 6th amendment, “guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions”. This case is a very well-known because there was too much of discrimination towards Hispanics. Pedro Hernandez is a resident at Edna, Texas, a Mexican guy who was accused of convicting the murder of Joe Espinosa who was also a resident of the same area. Hernandez was found guilty by an all-white jury going all the way to Supreme Court. Their lawyers argue that it wasn’t fair for them not having a Mexican American as a jury and there was only Americans, because in that way they would take advantage of a Mexican American to do whatever they wanted to do with him. In the 1950’s was when this case occurred and also there was a harsh discrimination to Mexican Americans from the white people at the United States. Mexicans and African Americans were just a “waste of time” for the white people, that’s how the white people thought about them. History, discrimination and how did this issue impact police, court, and corrections are essential things that will be cover.

There are 4 Ps. Ps claim they were unlawfully detained by MOS and falsely arrested on drug charges. Ps allege that they live in a three family private house with apartments on 3 floors. Ps allege that the first floor apartment was of P Yolanda Lopez; second floor apartment was of P Yvonne (non-party), and basement apartment was of Evelyn Lopez and her 17 year old daughter, Karina Lopez. Ps Rafael Rivera and Erin Morales were staying on the first floor. P Rivera alleges that MOS entered the house and order him to get to his knee and P Rivera complied. P Rivera alleges that while he was on his knees MOS struck P Rivera in the face with the riot shield. P Evelyn Lopez alleges that defendant MOS Anthony Hughes grabbed her arm and struck her face against a wall and illegally searched her basement apartment. Defendant MOS John Natoli stated that the search warrant applied to all floors because each family has access other family’s

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

April 17, 2013, the case of Salinas V. Texas was presented to the United States Supreme Court to be argued and decided. The case disputed a person's Fifth Amendment’s privileges to self-testify and remain silent. After murdering two brothers after an apparent party in 1992, Salinas was deemed the main suspect and was taken into custody for further questioning. There was one catch though, Salinas was never read his Fifth Amendment rights before questioning, only before he was tried.

In June of 2014, the Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu filed his final ruling on the educational debate of the teacher tenure laws of California, ruling out five California Educational Code laws. However one day after said ruling, Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of California. The Superior Court favored Vergara’s side claiming the Teacher’s tenure of California unconstitutional because it violates children’s civil rights to an education. “Student’s Matter,” a non-profit organization founded by David Welch, organized nine students to file this case. Their plea was that every student around the world deserves a good education taught by good teachers and the tenure principles in this state makes firing bad teachers almost impossible, giving students in poorer districts an unfair education in comparison to other wealthier, privileged districts. The defendants officially include the State of California, Teacher’s Union supporters Jerry Brown and Tom Torlakson who are the State governor and State Superintendent of Schools respectively, the California’s Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the Teacher’s Union of California. This ruling and it’s immediate appeal was and remains a strong source of tension between the Teachers Union and it’s supporters as well as the “Student’s Matter” organization and thousands of impoverished

The front of defendant’s property has waist-high stone walls separating the backyard from the driveway area, while the back of the property abuts state parklands and has no separating wall. R.13, 10, 16. A gravel path leads from the driveway to the

In Los Angeles, it’s a very popular and expensive place to live, and due to many reasons over 55,000 people have been homeless, up to 2006 the homeless would get arrested for laying in public areas, losing all of their belongings. In the case of Jones v. City of Los Angeles six homeless people appealed their acclimation and won, causing the city to remove that law. In the Case of Jones v. Los Angeles, the court made the right decision because this law acted against the 8th and 14th amendment.

In the case Miranda v Arizona in 1966, the United States Supreme Court determined, suspects of criminal activities have the right to be free from self-incrimination during an interrogation by law enforcement (Hall, 2015). These findings provided guidelines to law enforcement personnel when questioning individuals suspected of criminal actions since referred to as Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings are rights given to a suspect before questioning begins advising them of their right to remain silent, their right to speak with an attorney, moreover, acknowledgment of their statements possibly being used against them in court. Additionally, the Miranda rights inform individuals an opportunity to have an attorney present even if they cannot afford one on their own. The State will provide an attorney at no cost to indigent individuals.

In the landmark court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is taken into custody of the police, or has been deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way, they must be advised of their constitutional rights. Reason being is because the court realized that in custodial interrogations, the compulsion for a person to potentially incriminate their self is apparent. Therefore, without proper safeguards, the process of custodial interrogation would compel an individual to speak where they would otherwise not do so freely. In the years following Miranda, there has been considerable controversy regarding the extent of Miranda’s prophylactic shield, and under what circumstances the safeguards of Miranda will apply to juveniles.

The Miranda rights were created in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect all suspects’ “Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions”(Miranda Rights, 2009). The Miranda rights are done once an arrest has been made or before the questioning occurs and then an officer is free to ask questions for the investigation. The suspect can either remain silent or answer the questions being asked. Suspects must be told their constitutional right to have an attorney and against self- incrimination before the questions.

Facts: Parties: Mitchell (M), Neff (N), Pennoyer (P). Land was sold at an auction to allow M to collect on a judgment he won by default. The judgment arose because N did not pay attorney fees owed to M. M won by default because N did not appear in court. However, M, who lived in Oregon, published notice of the matter in an Oregon newspaper, not in California. N lived in California. The Oregon court placed the judgment against land N owned in Oregon, which was sold to a buyer called P. M was paid from the sale of the property, but years later N sued the buyer to get his land back.

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.