Almost every little girl’s dream when thinking ahead to her life in the future will include meeting someone who will treat her right, later on be proposed to and become engaged, and eventually married to live happily ever after. If life was always fair and just, then every little girl would definitely grow up and have her dream come true. However, this obviously is not the case for many people, and certainly was not what happened in the case of Meyer v. Mitnick. As presented in the overview of the case, Meyer and Mitnick fell in love and became engaged, only to have it fall apart upon discussing the topic of a pre-nuptial agreement. The disagreement over the pre-nuptial led to the larger issue of the engagement ring being settled in court. …show more content…
I believe that the court ruled correctly, since an engagement ring is essentially a promise to later become married. If the eventual marriage does not happen and the couple breaks up, then in most cases I believe the ring should be returned to whomever bought the ring and proposed. There are some circumstances where, however, I do believe that the ring should be kept by the recipient. For instance, if a woman became engaged and she later discovered that her fiancé had been cheating on her in an affair, then she should be allowed to keep the ring. I believe this would also apply in the event of being left at the altar for the said wedding. If the soon-to-be spouse never shows up, I believe the party that did show up, fully ready to be wed that day, should have a right to
Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he
Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.
Cpl. Jeffrey Johnston Hellertown Police Dept. 685 Main St. Hellertown, Pa. 18055 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Johnston, provided the following information:
John Cain met employee Oliver Dean Emigh (“Emigh”) and owner John Roberts at the Bargain Barn in March of 1998. John Cain (“Cain”) was a self-employed computer consultant. John Roberts (“Roberts”) explained to Cain that he needed documents typed for Republic of Texas (“ROT”) legal matters due to being a member of the ROT. Cain met with Johnie Wise and Roberts the next day at the Bargain Barn to discuss computer related topics. Cain became worried about Roberts, ROT affiliation when he went to work for Roberts on a daily basis. Cain told the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about Roberts’ request for secretarial assistance on ROT matters
MILLERSBURG — A Millersburg area man on Tuesday denied being in possession of firearms as he fled the scene where he was allegedly stalking a donut delivery driver.
3. Seeing that the dispute involved the sale of land, specific performance is the proper award for damages to the injured party.
Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse
MILLERSBURG — After the victim of an a December assault recanted significant details of the event, her boyfriend on Thursday pleaded guilty to reduced and limited charges.
A group of students gathered for a meeting in December of 1965. They planned to show their support for peace in the Vietnam War. John Tinker and a group of his friends met at Christopher Eckhardt’s home in Des Moines. They all agreed to wear black armbands during the entirety of the holiday seasons and to not eat on the 16th of December and New Years Eve. Their school discovered the student's plan and decided to produce a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband who would not remove it if asked would be suspended. The school would only allow the students to return if they agreed to follow the new policy and remove the armbands. John Tinker’s sister, Christopher Eckhardt, and the other students who attended their meeting all wore the armbands to school. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended since they did not cooperate with the policy. Tinker’s parents sued the school for repressing their children's self-expression and opinions. They demanded that a law would be made to forbid the school from disciplining their children for their expressive actions.
Procedural: The United States and Georgia Constitutions allow the Georgia Department of Corrections to compel incarcerated felons to submit saliva samples for DNA profiling, pursuant with O.C.G.A. section 24-4-60. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the search and seizure provisions of the Georgia Constitution, or the felon’s rights to privacy under the United States or Georgia Constitutions, and was affirmed.
This the first case in United States history to be considered unconstitutional. The significance in this case is that it helped define the original jurisdiction of the
Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were
On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search
I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.
* After the business aspects were secured, the engagement followed. The husband presented his fiancée with a ring; the woman could give her fiancé a ring as well, but it was not required. The woman’s mother was responsible for throwing an engagement dinner for the couple.