Meyers Vs. Commonwealth: Misuse Of Discretion

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

This case study revolves around the United States of America v. Robert Durandis, Donald Charles, Gilbert Pierre-Charles, Manual Reyes-Gonzalez case, which entails the crime of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud via the use of access devices. An access device is defined as “any card, plate, code, account number… or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds” (LII, n.d.). The series of events occurred from November 23rd, 2013 till July 24, 2014; the defendants conspired and devised a plan to commit fraud using counterfeit access devices to obtain a value earning of more than one thousand dollars (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al, 2014). The manners and means of the defendants to

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.

Moreover, we are cognizant that the questions as to whether the dismissal of an inappropriate declaratory action is an appropriate use of discretion, and whether the failure to dismiss an inappropriate declaratory action is an abuse of discretion, are completely different inquiries. Holding that the failure to dismiss an inappropriate declaratory action is an abuse of discretion, however, is not without precedent. See, e.g., Waicker, supra, 347 Md. 108; Tpk. Farm v. Curran, 316 Md. 47 (1989) (reversing, in per curiam decision, declaration made by Circuit Court of Frederick County because similar action involving same issues was pending in the same court).

I am humbly asking that the court of Tennessee will appeal its verdict in regards to the nationally recognized Scope v. State, in 1925. This case will argue the liberties in educating future scientist and general students; and not subjecting religious beliefs in a publicly taxed arena. John Scopes( the defendant) is an educator serving as a substitute teacher at Rhea County High School in Dayton, Tennessee public school system. The defendant was accused of violating the “Butler Act” on the 25th of May, 1925 ,which forbade the teachings of Evolution in public schools because, of the major contradictions to biblical doctrines. William Jennings Bryan( the Prosecutor) was a highly respected lawyer and former secretary of State. Clarence Darrow was an extremely notable attorney who served as legal counsel for Mr. Scopes.The defendants actions resulted in a criminal trial that was held for eight days. Coverage of the case was the first to be publicized by a reporters in the courtroom. The verdict was in favor of the state of Tennessee which motioned that the Butler Act was broken. Scopes found guilty and charged with a substantial fine of $ 100 dollars($1366 in 2017). It is my argument that the defendant was poorly favored by the court because, the testimonies examined where those persons whom Mr. Scope taught the chapter Evolution to. Testimonies that would support the defendant was overruled.

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

Under the First Amendment, the founders intended to create a press that could inform the general public of government affairs. The Founders did this in response to the oppressive action of the British government, including the trial of John Paul Zenger. In Branzburg v. Hayes, a plurality and a concurrence within this Court recognized that the First Amendment included a privilege that protected journalists from being compelled to divulge a source to a grand jury. Because there was no clear majority, the narrowest holding of the plurality and the concurrence is considered the controlling opinion. Further, there is an overwhelming consensus among circuit courts that the privilege exists. This privilege protects journalists when the interest in

Representation is a substantive issue that is constantly being questioned in the judicial system. As our society continues to advance and adapt to new methods to better serve its citizens, new issues has roused to the surface. As a result, individuals have brought their case to court challenging how the court interprets the law.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia held “that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban … violated that right.”1 The majority opinion addressed that the dissenting opinion contained a different interpretation of the Amendment. The “dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.” 2 Justice Scalia explained that the respondent believed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right unconnected with militia service, and that it protects the right to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

A Confrontation Clause violation is a constitutional error that requires reversal unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” Lee v. State, 418 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd). In determining, whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the court should consider, (1) how important is the out-of-court statement to the State's case; (2) whether the out-of-court statement is cumulative of other evidence; (3) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the out-of-court statement on material points; and (4) the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 582 (Tex. Crim. App.

This means that a ruling to a case should be used again when another similar one is presented. It is clear that the way the police went about getting their evidence was like searching the house and was invading Kyllo’s privacy. An example of this would be the Katz vs. the United States case in 1967. The police put a device that allowed them to listen to his conversations on the outside of a public booth he frequently used. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Katz because “What a person knowingly exposed to the public...is not a subject to the Fourth Amendment. But what he seeks to as private, in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” said by Justice Potter Stewart. The government went too far because the DLK case is similar to this one where it was deemed that they can’t use evidence that was kept private even if it is a “public” setting. The police invaded Kyllo’s privacy in his home, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment and essentially searched his home because they could tell what was going on inside his house. The Supreme court has previously ruled in favor of the petitioner in cases like the DLK case which means the government has gone too far yet

Dissenting Opinion: (Justice Butler) Justice Butler believes that ‘search and seizure’ was taken to literally. Instead he proposed that the Fourth Amendment had been violated due to the purposely attempting to listen in on private conversation of individuals without a warrant

The appellants Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson and Gloria Taylor joined with other appellants to bring the civil claim which is against the prohibition on assisted suicide found in s. 14 and s. 241 (b) of the Criminal Code (Carter, para. 20). The same issue which was brought in Rodriguez v. British Columbia 20 years ago was declared to be constitutional. In this case, ultimately Lee Carter’s appeals succeeded.

Precedents have played a significant role construction and transformation public policy over time. The concern that judges face is whether establishing a new duty of care will influence public policy. This is the issue that results from in the Cooper v. Hobart case. The judge constructed a final decision that Hobart did not owe a duty of care to Cooper due to explanations that are delineated in public policy. This essay will discuss in favour of the judge’s decision for the reason that establishing a new duty of care would have conflicted with existing public policy. Initially, I will be providing a concise summary about the case of Cooper v Hobart. This involves the facts, issues and ratio. Then, I will elucidate what the Anns test is

At the center of the judicial system in the Commonwealth Caribbean lies the English Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is primarily the final Court of Appeal for those Commonwealth territories which have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in other matters."' The Privy Council is an institution that became established as the final court for the individual countries during the era of colonialism. The Privy Council is the British Crown's private council. It is composed of more than three hundred members, including cabinet members,