The Court Will Likely Rule That The Golf Cart Path Is Not A Public Way

The lease is a standard form agreement prepared by the American Industrial Real Estate Association.

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

The case here at hand was argued October 5th of 1964. The issue was one that dealt with Ollie’s Barbecue and its owner Ollie McClung in Alabama and the refusal of black patrons coming inside to dine-in. Ollie’s only allowed take out to black customers, even though the majority of employees were black. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was handed down in July, Congress along with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach were arguing that a clear violation of Title II of the Act was being committed by McClung. This case was close in distinction and timing of the Heart of Atlanta Motel case brought before the Supreme Court, as they were argued at the same time. “Section 201 (a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to

b. This route has no physical barrier for pedestrians and is regularly shared with vehicular traffic.

The Missouri Supreme Court has interpreted “highway” to apply to any roads where the public is accustomed to travel. Covert, S.W.3d at 75. The Missouri courts will look at the following factors to determine if a road is a highway: its (1) accessibility by (a) emergency vehicles, (b) delivery vehicles, and (c) members of the public; (2) its regulation, Id. at 74,75; (3) maintenance of the road, and (4) its usage for travel and as a thoroughfare, State v. Gittemeier, 400 S.W.3d 838, 844 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2013). Furthermore, the courts have determined that a privately maintained road may still be considered a highway if it is still accessible to the public. Covert, S.W.3d at 77.

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

Fisher, the court stated that the subdivision streets were highways. Id. at 77. In the Covert case, the plaintiff was found to have been driving on a road that had state issued signage. Id. at 73. The court in the Covert case used the state issued signage to show that the streets were intended to be accessible by the public, this was important because roads that are not intended for the public to drive on do not require state issued signage. Id. The roads in the Covert case had mail delivered to them by the mail carrier by utilization of the roads. Id. The court in the Covert case reasoned that mail delivery vehicles utilizing the roads was important because a road that is utilized by the mail carrier can also be utilized by the public. Id. In Covert, public traffic was allowed entry and utilization to the subdivision roads. Id. The court reasoned that entry and utilization by public traffic was important because public entry and utilization shows that there was nothing restricting people from using the subdivision streets as a thoroughfare. Id. Therefore, the court decided that the plaintiff was driving on a highway because the public had free access and consistent usage. Id. at

Including the roadway will make it more efficient for boaters to get their boat in the water and so that kayakers and paddle boarders don't have to lug their heavy and awkward shaped craft a couple hundred feet anymore. To use the launch and slips, a permit is needed which will be granted from the town. This fixture will be a convenience and will be a much nicer upgrade to the “kayak launch” at the wharf now.

When a dog that has bitten someone before is set loose again due to the carelessness of his owner, we don’t just hold the dog accountable. We blame the owner. From a legal standpoint, it wasn’t the madness of the dog that caused the damages; it was the owner’s negligence. In the case of Joshua Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia, Six Flags was the owner and their gang affiliated employees were the mad dogs. On July 3, 2007, Six Flags’ security allowed these employees, along with a plethora of other gang members, back into the amusement park after terrorizing an innocent family,which eventually led to the attack on Martin along with his brother and cousin. Because of Six Flags’ negligent actions and lack of immediate response to this life threatening situation, Martin sustained permanent brain damage leaving him in a coma for more than a week.

In Hobby Lobby the Court reiterated its interpretation that a corporation has rights similar to that of an individual (Citizens United v. FEC), since corporations are composed of individuals, and thus are due the rights granted in the RFRA. The Court in Hobby Lobby found that providing contraception, and access to reproductive healthcare, serves the compelling state interest of public health and welfare. In parallel, this Court found that ensuring that people have coverage by health care providers is a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby correctly applied the test of strict scrutiny, and required that the mandate be the least restrictive means of advancing this compelling government interest. This is where the mandate failed as applied to Hobby Lobby. The Court found the mandate could not be applied to private corporations in order to require them to provide reproductive healthcare. In contrast, in the case at hand, the rule prohibiting multiple spouses as beneficiaries of a health insurance policy is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest; that being the ability to provide the public with insurance in order to advance public health and welfare. Therefore, RFRA is not a basis upon which Mr. Bridges can claim his rights are violated if the insurance does not cover more than one wife. In conclusion, RFRA is not the basis for requiring health insurance to cover both Germanotta’s and Maraj 's claims.

GLENDALE, CA-- Threatened with a lawsuit that claims their current electoral system discriminates against Latino voters, the Glendale City Council, the Glendale Community College District Board (GCCD), and the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) have considered introducing measures that would replace the city’s at-large voting system with council districts.

The Supreme Court has supported that a place that can be viewed by a person in public can also be viewed or observed by law enforcement. In the case California v. Ciraolo the court held that “The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye” (State v. Ainsworth

According to page 74 to 77 of the textbook, "trail courts are (...) courts in which trails are held and testimony taken. On the other hand, "court of appeals do not conduct new trails, in which evidence is submitted to the court and witness are examined"(Page 74 & 75). An appellate court review and "determines whether the trail court committed an error" (Page 75). "State trail courts have either general or limited jurisdiction"(Page

These Mohawk group of people originally had the right to the land and it was theirs at one point but was then taken away for use of a religious settlement and had never been fully given back to them. From then on the Mohawk people have been trying to get what is left of their land back, and to stop the golf course from being built. But even some of the people who were not First Nations had problems with the town of Oka building the golf course, because “the golf course expansion and luxury housing development project… was a private club built on what they felt was public land” (Pertusati, 1997). So both First

In most cases, there is a flat green path between the hole and the player, but there has yet to be a golfer proficient enough to utilize that fairway every time, requiring the player to cope with the treacherous obstacles that lie in wait for every errant shot.