Mitsui V Mumford Case Study

The case began with Warren McCleskey, an African-American man who was sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer during the robbery of a Georgia furniture store.  McCleskey appealed his conviction and sentence, relying on the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection to argue that the death penalty in Georgia was administered in a racially discriminatory -- and therefore unconstitutional--manner.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of 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)

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

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 first case was Kent v. United States (1966) and it initiated a wave of cases that had the effect of reforming juvenile courts. The case involved Morris Kent, a resident of the District of Columbia, who was 16 when he was arrested and detained for a number of charges, including "housebreaking," robbery and rape (Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, 1966). Kent was summarily transferred to an adult court to be tried, not as a juvenile, but as an adult. Kent’s attorney argued that the procedure employed by legal authorities was unjust – specifically with the way he was remanded to a higher court without prior warning. This case was appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which elected to hear the case in 1966. After hearing oral arguments, the

R v Morin is a case concerning the murder of 9 year old Christine Jessop and the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. Christine Jessop went missing on October 3, 1984, after searching for days there was no sign of Christine. Almost 3 months later on December 31, 1984 Christine’s body was found 50 kilometers away, she had been stabbed several times in the chest which had been the cause of death the semen on her clothing also suggested that she was raped. On February 14 1985 Christine’s mother told the police that Guy was a “weird type of guy” which caught the police’s attention. They set up surveillance on the Morin home on February 19 and interviewed Guy on February 22, the police suspected Guy even more, because of some comments he made.

Within the United States Constitution as it Pertained to the Dred Scott Case of 1856

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three Amendment made after the Civil War. It granted African-Americans the right to citizenship in the United States of America. This Amendment is made up of five parts. Starting with the first part, no one can be robbed of their property, life, or liberty and legally everyone has equal protection. This part of the amendment applies to citizens unless a law or trial is present to overturn those rights. The second part is Representatives in Congress are determined based on the number of people living in the states. The third part focuses on preventing anyone working in the government to be allowed to participate in insurrection or a rebellion against the United States. In part four of

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.

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

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.

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

The Sales of Goods Act 1893 provides the definition of ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’. During the period between 1893 to 1962 both ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’ was generally accepted that they were the only two types of terms which assist in ‘identifying the breaches which entitled the injured party to terminate the contract. In the turning point of 1962, a new type of term-intermediate term brought about a whole new page into the Law of Contract. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd vs Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd is the key case which owns the credit for this discovery. In the case, the ship owner hired out the Hong Kong fir, ‘being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service’. The ship was delivered on 13 February 1957, sailing