The Case Laredo Medical Group V. Mirelas

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

What started the argument of this case was ‘what standard should be used to evaluate the sufficient amount of probable cause and if the word of an informant be reliable. Thanks to this case we now have a two prong rule that needs to be met before a magistrate can sign a search warrant.

The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

Albert Rodriguez, Jr. appeals from his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter and felony vandalism. First, he contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of gang membership ~(AB 12)~ He also asserts the court violated Section 654 of the California Penal Code when it imposed consecutive sentences the vandalism charge. ~(AB 22)~ We conclude that the court properly admitted evidence of gang affiliation. Moreover, even if it was admitted wrongly, any error was harmless. Moreover, we find that the court did not violate section 654 when it imposed consecutive sentences for the manslaughter and vandalism charges. We therefore affirm the judgment.

As you know, we represent Dr. Scott St. John, former psychotherapist to Lee Medina. In the interest of bringing the matter between Dr. St. John and your client, Molly Sumner, to an expeditious closure, I have been sanctioned by our client’s employer to give the following settlement offer and to offer additional compensation for her minor foster child, Portia. Understand that this letter, and any offer made herein, is considered to be a confidential settlement communication pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 408. Please deliberate with your client, give our offer every consideration, and contact our office with your decision within

I believe it is explicitly clear that this business owner should continue to grow and sell marijuana from his store. According to the state law in California he is operating completely within the confines of the law. However, now the debate begins, does the federal law concerning marijuana supersede California’s state law; I believe it does not. According to article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the Congress of the United States has the power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Therefor since the marijuana is not being sold across state lines, the federal government should have zero jurisdiction in the matter. But because of the Supreme Courts decision in Wickard v.

Likewise, mere possession of a vehicle cannot support an inference of knowledge regarding the presence of contraband, and it certainly cannot support the specific intent as to a conspiracy or otherwise for aiding and abetting. Indeed, “[i]t is axiomatic that more is required than mere knowledge of the purpose of a conspiracy. See, e.g., Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711-13 (1943); United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2003). What is more, such knowledge by itself, would not even establish aiding and abetting liability, which requires proof of the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime, see United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006), let alone conspiracy. See

The Mirena IUD is a intrauterine device, offering a long acting birth control and in some cases can be used to treat women with very heavy menstrual bleeding. The IUD is a very small and flexible T-shaped device that is placed in the uterus and slowly releases the hormone called Levonorgestrel. Mirena is said to prevent pregnancy by 99% and can be left in for up to 5 years or sooner if so decided by the patient.

It is not all loss or damages that happen on the premises guarantees total protection to all guest. For instance, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah have to use the infra hospitium rule if the innkeeper supervises guest vehicles at the parking area, garage valet or in the control of an employee, not within the premises (Sherry, 1990). Case in point, the Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 252 P.3d 206 (Nev. 2011), Appellant drove to Sunset Hotel and Casino, entrusted his keys to a valet staff received a claim tag for his car. The Appellant found that an unknown person had stolen his vehicle from the valet parking lot. The next car was found stripped, later he submitted a claim and received from the insurance $20,434.98 (Burns, 2011). Burns confirmed

I have mixed feelings about what both Whitaker and Vincent expressed in this interview. In my view Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman shouldn’t be extradited to the United States legal system. Guzman has committed countless transgressions of the law, however those crimes weren’t committed in the United States thus extraditing him to a country where he hasn’t violated any laws wouldn’t be comprehensible. The United States should steer clear of legal matters concerning Guzman in other countries because Mexico (where the heinous criminal was wanted for over ten years) will be able to prosecute him accordingly. In addition, Mexico will be able to prosecute him to a greater degree than the United States can on account of they have greater knowledge of the

José Ernesto Medellin Rojas, a Mexican National was arrested for the gang-rape and murder of two women who were locals of Texas. The case study highlights and goes through the facts in hand, the issues faced and the judgement, also the controversies which in turn grabbed attention by the media, before becoming known worldwide. Medellin was convicted and arrested for his crimes and was given death sentence by the Texas State Court. The key factor here is that Medellin being a Mexican national (spending most of his life in the United States) was not provided his rights to contact or inform consular personnel from Mexico concerning his detention in the US. According to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (Which the US is also a signatory) Medellin should be given his rights to do so. Medellin also claimed that he was in-fact, not informed of this. With the intervention of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) suggesting that the convictions of Medellin should be re-assessed and made to be compliant with the Vienna Convention regulations. It is also noteworthy to mention that the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction on dispute settlement, as a matter of fact the US had withdrawn from this protocol which remains optional. This furthermore led to the intervention of the US President and his actions meanwhile remain debatable because of the fact that he definitely has many

The case of Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 was a way for the law to see that law does indeed need to change with society. It deals with tort law and the right of action for intrusion upon seclusion existing in Ontario. It is based on personal privacy and the court heard that the defendant (Tsige) viewed the plaintiff’s (Jones) personal banking records 174 times within a four-year window. The plaintiff and the defendant did not personally know each other but worked at different branches of the Bank of Montreal in Ontario. The plaintiff was in a common-law relationship with the defendant’s ex-husband. When the plaintiff pursued litigation, the judge dismissed it because there was no existence of a tort invasion of privacy in Ontario at that

Greedy Physicians: Doctors tend to order unnecessary test just to protect themselves. Doctors racking up charges with extra tests, services and procedures that the patient would not need. The way to practice medicine has change completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job, now it is about ‘How much will you benefit’.

“Over the past 20 to 25 years courts have been carving out common law exceptions to employment at will” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010, p. 1338). One of those exceptions is that of wrongful termination or unjust dismissal. In the past three years there have been five wrongful termination suits brought against Haywood Regional Medical Center. Three cases ended positively for the plaintiffs, while the other two showed that the Medical Center had the stronger case and that the Medical Center had just cause to terminate the employee.