State V. Ballew Case Brief

Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366; 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9198

Why would the Indiana Attorney General wade into a United States Supreme Court case over the opening prayers said at town council meetings in western New York state?

Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-3401 and 13-3405, did Jess Pepper knowingly possess marijuana for sale when officers found seventy pounds of marijuana in the lining of the back seat of her Prius?

Rev. Yun offered advice and discussed spiritual matters with Ms. Borzoi; therefore, Rev. Yun was acting in her professional capacity as a senior pastor at BMCC.

In Ohio, year 1957 a minor incident turned to be the headlines of Ohio news. My client, Ms.Mapp has been put under trial because of possessing obscene material but those materials were obtained through illegal doing. Officers had thought that a bombing suspect was in her house. They had asked to come in but Mapp had not admitted them to enter without a warrant. The officers had come by her house three hours later with a paper that they claimed to be a warrant. That paper was then snatched by Mapp and used later on in court. The officers then handcuffed Mapp and proceeded in her house with a fake warrant and continued a search and seizure in her house for the refugee but was not found but in their investigation.They stumbled upon obscene materials which she is guilty of as of now. She shouldn’t be convicted of her charges because there was illegal evidence found without a warrant. She should be free of her charges because putting her on trial will show the Fourth amendment no true purpose for the

When looking at the dilemma that appears in the case of Mary Beth versus William and Elizabeth Stern there is a moral and legal issue that arises. The judge was very broad in his ruling and was not able to put himself into the shoes of Mary Beth. When it comes to pregnancy, there is a connection that is established during the 9 months, between mother and child that is unexplainable and a maternal relationship that should not be broken. The morally right and just ruling would have been to give the child to the intended parents but allow Mary Beth, as the surrogate, visitation rights. The contract between the Stern family and Mary Beth implied that Mary Beth was doing a duty or a job and getting paid the equivalent of her duties. It stated that Mary Beth would

The McCullough Vs. Maryland case’s significance was that it was the first to question the power of the federal government. It began when the war of 1812 had ended and the U.S. had acquired a lot of debt. Congress founded the 2nd bank of the United States of America to help pull the country out of debt. At first, the people were happy with Congress’ decision because the bank was a great success, but as the states sensed a financial crisis, known as the Financial Crisis of 1819, they began to dislike the bank. The states were angered by the fact that they had less power than the federal government and decided to rebel and fight back.

Throughout the years of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow latitude to speech of the press and of the people. However, the restrictions on speech the Court determined to fall outside the limits of permitted speech and therefore considered “unprotected speech” include fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, solicitations to commit crimes, child pornography, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, and false & misleading commercial speech. To look back at recorded foundations of the first amendment regarding speech – words used to incite imminent lawless action, can be seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is to say, a state can’t stop free speech unless there is imminent danger of inciting violence.

The perfect example of how we don’t have full freedom of speech would be in the Elonis V. United States case in which a man repeatedly threatened his wife on Facebook after she left him and took their children with her. He started off by saying “There’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from al the little cuts.” The wife obtained a protection order against him and was granted custody of their children. Elonis then challenged his conviction by stating that that was violating his first amendment rights and that internet users may vent online if they state that they’re not really going to execute the threat. However, just because someone says theyre not going

I am waiting to hear back from the plaintiffs’ attorney regarding alternate dates due to Ms. Bicker’s unavailability on January 20. They are on trial the week of January 23 and I have asked them to look at the week of January 13. I will let you know as soon as I hear back from them.

BRENDA WELLS, Administrator of the Estate of DANNY J. WELLS, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY and SCOTT K. FONCANNON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JAMES JERNIGAN, deceased, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4265. James L. Foreman, Senior District Judge. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. OVERVIEW: The widow's husband died on October 3, 1987, while taking a ride in a plane that

Facts: The plaintiff was an employed for the defendant. The defendant informed the plaintiff that his position would be eliminated because of budget constraints. The defendant gave him the option of resigning and retiring or waiting until the December when the position would be terminated. The decision had to be made before the date of June 30th however there was new retirement policy taking effect on July 1st which would cause the plantiff not to receive his post-retirement medical benefits.

The case cited State V. Newman is irrelevant to this case. Whereas, an alleged act of sleep-driving might have taken place in this case, he did not commit a violent crime, he was only charged with a DUI (1). Also, what proof can you provide that show’s Mrs. Cogdon was in fact sleepwalking the night of the murder? Did she have previous episodes of sleepwalking or was she heavily medicated? If she was trying to protect her daughter why couldn’t she have grabbed a knife from the kitchen instead of walking outside to grab an axe? Also, how could she manage while sleeping to strike her daughter with two accurate blows to the head and cause no additional damage? It is because she was in a conscience form and these acts where not only voluntary but

Courts have tried to continue a person’s First Amendment’s right of freedom of expression when it comes to voicing their opinion or views on something. Parades, protests, or just plain talking about ones views is protected by the First Amendment and is allowed. However, the courts have viewed these acts as hate crimes when a person or persons cross the line from just protesting their views to beginning to intimidate or harass anyone during these protests, which include “direct threats” (Quinn and Brightman, 2015, p. 166).

The United States Constitution creates the judicial branch of the government that led to establishing the Supreme Court. American legal system has a significant part in shaping, preserving freedom and equality (ushistory.org p, 9a). According to the United States Court, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was used for the first time, it started with six justices (2015). Currently, the Supreme Court has eight federal associate justices and one chief justice, all serves for life. Congress creates the Federal Court and has the power to reorganize the court system. The court has the authority to protect the freedom of speech unjust or to express an opinion. Supreme Court makes the last decision about all cases that deals with the federal laws and treaties. As part of the judicial branch of the government the Supreme Court, reviews and explains laws, resolves dispute and decides if a law goes against the United States Constitution. These cases are under the “appellate jurisdiction.” The judiciary chooses which case to hear, justices never