Olson V Tukwila School Summary

CASE CITATION: Kurt HOME and Brenda Home, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendants. No. 21696-5-II. (1998)

Arguments of the Parties: The petitioners’ main argument was that, under article 1 of the N.Y. Constitution, the Project approved by ESDC was unconstitutional because it was not for the purpose of putting properties to public use. The ESDC argued that the new campus properly qualified as a civic project within the meaning of the Urban Development Corporation Act.

There is no dispute that David was not invited to swim in the homeowners pool. David had previously received oral notice from the homeowner to stay off his property. I do believe that the Thomas’s can argue the attractive nuisance doctrine.

The court argues that the city’s argument does not hold up because the provisions of the ordinance requiring the shops to close at specified hours bear no reasonable relation to the public health or general welfare. The ordinance clearly is restricting the barber shops to be opened at specified times and days. The ordinance is interfering with the lawful business of the individual which is in violation of the

This case involves a number of issues concerning free speech rights, the Establishment Clause, and their incorporation under the 14th Amendment. First, the Court must first decide whether the school facilities sought for use by the petitioner constitute a public forum to determine which standard of review should be applied to the State’s regulations. Upon establishing the standard of review to be used, the Court must determine whether the 1st Amendment free speech rights of the petitioner as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment were violated by the policy in question. If such a violation is found, the Court must subsequently rule whether said violation was justified by, as the State will argue, a compelling state interest in avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause. Independent from these other issues, the Court must determine if, as the District Court ruled, the School Board’s policy’s distinction between permitted and prohibited activities is unconstitutionally vague.

The judge took many factors into consideration before he made his decision, and his logic was thorough and sound. To begin, the judge acknowledged Tyler Junior College’s right to establish their own rules and regulations. This acknowledgement established the fact that the institution of Tyler Junior College is not a tyrannical entity, but rather a public establishment with rights of their own. Directly after this acknowledgement, he stated that the power of institutions like Tyler Junior College has been limited in the past. Examples were given for power limitations, and the conclusion for this train of logic stated the fact that colleges had the right to classify students regarding their general appearance and behavior, but not on an unreasonable basis. Tyler Junior College’s restrictions on hair length are unreasonable because the rule in converse is, quite simply, ridiculous. No sane college would require their male students to grow their hair out to a predetermined length, so why do they require male students to cut their

The party crashers started quarrel with the guests and the defendant chased everyone out where the crashers open fired on the guests and left. The plaintiffs (three guests) had sustained injuries and wanted compensation for it. Two were injured from gunshots and one was not able to get the affection and love that her husband gave her in the same way.

Warleggen’s waiver distinguishes itself from the waiver in Roberts in that Warleggen’s waiver includes activity leading up to spelunking and cave tours, like the “car or van travel to and from the site”, while also including the phrase “ordinary negligence” directly in the types of risks that are included in spelunking. In Roberts, it was unclear to the court if the waiver covered activities before and after entering the hot air balloon. Unlike in Brooten, Warleggen’s waiver does not followed the term “negligence” with “OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.” Warleggen’s decision to omit that phrase precludes the possibility for an overly broad interpretation, like construing the waiver to release incidents involving recklessness and intentional conduct. If the waiver was overly broad and extended beyond ordinary negligence, the clause would be invalid under public policy. The waiver also includes “… ALL RISK[S] ASSOCIATED WITH SPELUNKING OR CAVING EXCURSION…,” which would seem to cover reckless or intentional conduct, but the sentence preceding it describes what “spelunking or caving excursion” activities are and clearly states only “ordinary negligence” is included. The waiver sets out the common activities included in spelunking and cave excursions, while also specifically covering the activities that are common to spelunking. Furthermore, the waiver language “Risks include, but are not limited to. . .” advised the Poldarks that there were other risks to contemplate, distinguishing itself from the Atkins’ waiver which made it difficult to ascertain what was in the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s contemplation.

The defendant’s mother owned the property, where he removed a gun from his belt and threw it under a bush as he fled from approaching police. The court found that a public easement gives the right to the public of freedom of use and should be enjoyed without any infringing action by the owner of the freeholding land. Marrow at 11. In this case, the interaction occurred on a public easement. The interaction occurred on the strip between the sidewalk and street. The strip includes a city-owned fire hydrant and a tree that was paid for and owned by the city. It is necessary that a resident seek permission to cut down any tree. The land is a public easement because it has city-owned trees and fire hydrants. The police officers were on the public easement in the interaction with Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt may argue that, because he takes care of the land and is the owner of the freeholding land, it is not a public easement. However, the city has access to the land and Mr. Pitt must comply with the public’s right to freedom of use of the easement. The court would find that the interaction between the officers and Mr. Pitt occurred on a public

New Jersey vs TLO is another landmark Supreme Court case that deals with certain rights students can have at the school building. Terry (TLO) was found smoking in the school bathroom. School officials then searched her clothes and belongings for marijuana and other tobacco products. When they found marijuana and other illegal drugs the school called the police and she was arrested. She then went to court and the courts found her guilty of possessing and selling marijuana. She then appealed her case saying the school violated her 4th amendment right. The 4th amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court ruled against TLO and in favor of the school. The court said students have the right to privacy but that must be balanced with the schools job to maintain a place where students can come to learn. The bottom line of this Supreme Court case is that your belongings can be searched in the school building but not arbitrarily or without good

Whereas, certain disputes exist concerning Kannan Senthilkumar (Kannan S.’s) educational program while a student in the District, which claims are described in the case styled Kannan S. b/n/f Kandasami and Vijayalakshmi S. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 315-SE-0615 (“Claim”);

This topic was dealing with Rio Valley Charter School demanding a Use Permit to transfer its facility to Bella Terra Plaza. The staff wanted to move the school because they were worried that the school is 600 ft. away from restaurants and stories with alcohol licenses. There were many people who agreed with changing the location and many who didn’t agree with changing the location. City Attorney Janice Magdich distinguished that nothing in state law forbids the charter school from being surrounded by any business with an alcohol

Despite the talk of national parks and national resource parks, the main focus is the everyday park. While I was sitting on the side of the Raritan River I thought to myself how interesting the set up was. As I walked up there was a bench placed perfectly in this gap of trees that allowed you to look out onto the reflecting water. The thing that stuck out to me was the large abundance of trees, but what would a park be without trees? They were perfectly aligned and created the perfect picture frame around the water. It was peaceful despite the highway that you could see to the right of your vision. The whole experience struck me as odd because it was the first time I realized that so often it is the case that nature appears to be an afterthought to human needs. It was not only here that I saw this, but also by the waterfront park by my house. When I was younger the only thing down there was a little playground and now there is a bulkhead and basketball courts. The thing that was enjoyable about the waterfront park was that nature was slowly making its way back on top. The sand was building up over the little wooden fences and the weeds grew wild. It was a positive show of nature’s resilience. Granted the beach was altered in recent years due to Super Storm Sandy, but it is appearing to even bouncing back from that. The waterfront park provided context for what nature can do when left to fight back on its own, as compared to the Buccleuch Park, which represented the typical

The Supreme Court case of Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434, occurred in 2013. The facts of the case as described in the Supreme Court Case Slip Opinion by the Reporter of

Outdoor recreation is a big part of humans interacting with the environment. Hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, visiting national parks, examining wildlife, and traveling: these are the primary outdoor recreational activities in the United States. Each one has a significant impact on the environment. At some outdoor recreational activity spots there are restrictions as to where guests can walk and how much of the environment they can explore. This isn’t to make the guests mad; it is to preserve nature and make it last a long time, so the visitors can come back in years to come.