Malloy V. Mallay Case Study

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

In the case between R. v Maracle, it was about a 14 year old Brantford female was kidnapped at gunpoint by David Maracle on May 26, 1997 and brutally and repeatedly raped. This event had accused on 1997, and then was farther investigated and made its way to court. On November 8, 2000, the trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender and ordered him detained for an indeterminate period. The appellant appeals conviction and sentence. The case was later appealed in 2006. This case took place in superior court of justice. This case took place because the appellant’s conviction and sentence. In this case it shows the dangers so sex offenders and how hard they try to get away with crime that they have committed, even though they left all the proof / evidence behind at the location which was all leading up to them, being the one to frame. (http://www.thespec.com)

In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count

The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from

The Founding Fathers tried to protect citizen’s rights to religious choice and attempted to keep the government form religious interference. The purpose was not to disallow religion but to give the people a choice of whom and where to worship. Today, the views are not the same. Freedom of religion is being interpreted as freedom of religion as long as it is acceptable with everyone else. The Founding Fathers also wanted separation of church and state to protect the church from government interference. The concept has now become removal of religion from all aspects of government. The cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU are two prime examples, both with different results.

This case presents the question whether a complex statistical study that indicates a risk that racial considerations enter into capital sentencing determinations proves that petitioner McCleskey's capital sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution protect thSe right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? This questions Due Process of Law.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

In the Pat Dunn V. Chris LePuck case I am in favor of the defendant, Chris LePuck. The plaintiff, Pat Dunn, an experienced hockey player, knowingly and voluntary entered the hockey game. By nature of the sport, hockey games require players to have contact with each other so Dunn had the responsibility to assume the risk when he entered the game. The plaintiff also failed to wear a helmet during the game making him negligent. In relation to self defense, the plaintiff intentionally tripped and punched the defendant without the defendants permissions making it reasonable for the defendant to protect himself and hit Dunn with the stick. In consideration of the law of comparative fault, the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the legal fault of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is more than fifty percent legally at fault for the accident and damaged he faced. In proving that Chris LePuck is not liable for any damages or injuries Pat Dunn incurred, five similar court

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.

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

(1) Constitutional Question: Does Article 1, Section 8, The Coefficient Clause, give congress the ability to establish a national bank and does the Maryland law implementing a tax on the Baltimore Branch violate these privileges?

The people of the United Stated were against the Federal government establishing banks and completing with state and local banks; however, the Second Bank of the United States was opened (McCulloch V Maryland 1819). The State of Maryland decided to place taxes on the federal bank at the sum of $15,000; therefore, the case of McCulloch v Maryland was originated (McCulloch V. Maryland 1819)

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?