Menezes V. Bloomenthal Case Study

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

What happened to Edward Clary as it relates to mandatory minimum sentencing? Make sure you address Judge Clyde Cahill’s ruling

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

Our client, Joyce Byers, hired Martin Brenner to handle her divorce proceeding. She disclosed many details regarding her relationship with her ex-husband with

The Assistant District Attorney, Queens County, New York, Claude Stuart was the lead prosecutor in a murder case, titled, People v. Tyronne Johnson. Johnson was tried for the murder of Leroy Vann Tony. Johnson was convicted of murder and sentenced to the term of 20 years to life. After serving 13 years of the prison sentence, the conviction of the defendant was overturned. There was a determination that the prosecutor, Claude Stuart withheld evidence from the defense which was the reason the judgment was overturned.

Among these methods included the Communities’ formation of homeowner associations, such as the Charlotte North Carolina's Myers Park Housing Association, where in which the residents sought to maintain the racial homogeneity of their neighborhoods by enforcing covenants and monitor deeds. This act was detrimental to segregationists that could no longer enforce racially restrictive covenants under the law due to the 1948 ruling of the Shelley v. Kramer case (Taylor 198). During this time, realtors were exceptional supporters of residential segregation and discrimination. Instances of this were evident in real estate board's method of sales, such as the Chicago Real Estate Board’s national campaigning for the advocation for racially restrictive

The FBI arrested Katz after the agents overheard him making some gambling bets illegally while Katz used a public phone booth. The FBI agents placed microphones and on the tops of the public telephone booths to record his conversations, but only the end of the conversations were only recorded.

Judge McGhee cited several factors for his ruling such as Gault was already on probation and he was considered to be habitually involved in multiple incidents of immoral behavior (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ, citing multiple errors in the Arizona Juvenile Code such as not being properly notified of specific charges, the probation officer did not provide adequate notice of a hearing, and failure to provide an appeal is considered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell Law School,

Plaintiff’s legal representative Joe Miller used a strategy to convince the jury and prove points that Mr. Beckett was a competent attorney and discrimination were based on the fact that he was a homosexual with AIDS leading to his termination. Mr. Miller used discovery facts of depositions and witnesses at trial. Some witness pertained to clients Mr. Beckett represented in past lawsuits, co-workers and subpoena Melissa Bendict, whom was a paralegal from D.C., that also suffered with AIDS who worked with one of the partners of the Defendant. Defendants legal representative, Mrs. Conine’s used a strategy to persuade the jury that the instances of discrimination that Mr. Beckett claims are misunderstandings that been blown out of complete portion, she strategized that Mr. Becketts is angry that his lifestyle has been cut short due to his reckless behavior and wants someone to

The record thoroughly, clearly and positively shows that Smith and his attorney have ample time to thoroughly review Smiths’ sentence report prior to sentencing. They did so and had: “no problems with it.” It is shown by the record that Smith never appealed his conviction or sentence. Any objections to the sentence report as submitted were clearly waived by Smith. The defendant have the responsibility to advise the Court of any claimed errors in the sentence report. His failure to voice any objections waive any issue not properly presented. It has been long held by this court that “Section 2255 is not available to test the legality of matters

Civil liability cases are increasingly common against police officers and their departments, with failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims serving as to of the most common types of claims. Over the past four decades the courts have established and revised their standards for liability for both officers and their supervisors, and the United States Supreme Court has reviewed and reconsidered the threshold under which defendants in such cases may be held liable. Several landmark cases have established precedents in this area, including Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services (1978) and County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1989). In the decade that passed between cases, the Supreme Court moved the threshold for liability from gross negligence to deliberate indifference, establishing “a high hurdle for the plaintiff to overcome when asserting a training deficiency” (Ross, p.156). This new standard has come to be known as the Lewis test, and plaintiffs must meet this standard in order to prevail.

It is well settled that the courts of the Commonwealth of PA have held that when commercial uses are proposed to be located in residential neighborhoods, they are nuisances per se or actionable nuisances-in-fact. Indeed, the courts have declared that such commercial intrusions into residential neighborhoods are actionable as nuisances per se prior to their impact to prevent such intrusions. (emphasis added) In the case of Diehl v. Lockard, 254 Pa. Super. 111, 385 A.2d 550 (1978), even a single Pizza Hut restaurant proposed for a residential area was found to constitute a nuisance per se which could be precluded prior to construction.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Office of Bar Counsel. It was assigned to me for review and determination whether to request permission from the Board of Bar Overseers to proceed with disciplinary action.