Patridge V.: Case Study

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

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 Founding Fathers tried to protect citizen’s rights to religious choice and attempted to keep the government form religious interference. The purpose was not to disallow religion but to give the people a choice of whom and where to worship. Today, the views are not the same. Freedom of religion is being interpreted as freedom of religion as long as it is acceptable with everyone else. The Founding Fathers also wanted separation of church and state to protect the church from government interference. The concept has now become removal of religion from all aspects of government. The cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU are two prime examples, both with different results.

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.

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

Plessy V. Ferguson was a court case that took place in 1896 in New Orleans. This case was held due to an incident in which African American train passenger Homer Plessy refused to sit in a Jim Crow Car where at the time in Louisiana, all colored people had to by law, which required separation of both whites and colored people. This action resulted in Plessy’s arrest in 1890. Even though Plessy argued that this violated his constitutional rights, the court ruled that a state law that “states merely a legal distinction “between those that are white and colored did not conflict with the 13th and 14th amendments. Restrictive legislation bases on race continued following the Plessy decision, its reasoning was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954.

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

There have been many questions and concerns leading to court cases regarding federalism and state rights. Most frequently the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments interpretation plays a pivotal role in these cases. The tenth amendments are powers reserved for the states that are not expressed in the Constitution. The eleventh amendment protects states from getting sued by citizens. The cases Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), Nevada v Hibbs and Alden v Maine will showcase if the Supreme Court has been consistent when dealing with federalism and states rights.

On 02-04-16 at approximately 1349 hours, Officer Cass #2067 and I responded to Arco gas Station located at 2171 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Altadena in regards to a male and female arguing about $100.00. The incident occurred at 1518 N. Fair Oaks Avenue.

One would think that as a business person you should be allowed to distribute flyers as advertisements to people, and possible customers or consumers on the streets. Well, in April of 1942 a business man in Florida found himself facing charges for advertising his business using paper flyers. The Supreme Court did not consider whether or not commercial speech deserved First Amendment protection unit the Valentine v. Chrestensen case.(pg. 229) In Valentine v. Chrestensen, “The respondent, a citizen of Florida, owns a former United States Navy submarine which he exhibits for profit. In 1940 he brought it to New York City and moored it at a State pier in the East River. He prepared and printed a handbill advertising the boat and soliciting visitors

Two Utah sisters, Maria and Jan Brady posted a message on Facebook in support of anti-globalization and anti-genetically organism (GMO) activists against McDonalds restaurants, who had incited riots in Europe. The sister’s message, sent to over 500 “friends”, asking them to join the sisters in two days at 10 p.m. at a McDonalds near the sister’s apartment for a “night of riot, pillage, and fun”. A secondary message was sent out asking the participants to bring items that could be used as weapons or cause property damage.

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.