The High Court Decision Case

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

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

8. Reason: We can understand the policy rational of the Court in making this decision. Being that there was no explicit law on the books, the Court felt that the best interest of society would call for an establishment of such a rule to allow the case to be heard. As such it is possible for a reasonable person

I did go two different courts. Southwark Crown Court which was opened in 1983 is one of those. It contains 15 courts, making it the fourth biggest court in the nation and is outlined as a genuine extortion focus. In England and Wales the crown courts additionally go about as a court of first occasion for serious criminal offences. A case, contingent upon the seriousness can take many deferent routs through the structure of the legal framework. The severe the crime, the higher the court that the trial does settled. My court visit on eighteenth and nineteenth of December 2014 was truly fundamental, keeping in mind the end goal to accomplish a more prominent useful understanding of the different angles and structural type of legitimate framework. A percentage of the procedures that they take after are indeed regulations of Act of Parliament, the lion 's share of which are a piece of the Court Procedures Act 2004.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

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

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

The appellant, Sparrow was caught fishing with a drift net longer than the acceptable length under the Fisheries Act. Sparrow is a member is of the Musqueam group and has certain rules to follow under this. The appellant has admitted to the act, but has claimed there is an existing aboriginal right to fish. This issue falls under Section 35(1) of the Constitution act of 1982, and Sparrow has claimed the Act is inconsistent as he is just exerting his rights as an aboriginal. The respondent in the Supreme Court has argued that section 35(1) only protects this aboriginal right in food-related cases. The case has been brought to the Supreme Court, as previous appeals have been unsuccessful.

The case was heard at Manchester Crown Court on 8th December 2014. The defendant was convicted of handling and exchanging of indecent images, including recorded CDs with sexual acts, classified as range A, B and C with children aged between 8 and 10; being contrary to s45 and 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years of community order, including mandatory attending to sexual problems, regulatory behaviour and alcohol misuse helper groups, and 12 months of community payback. The judge considered the defendant’s previous sentences and needs, and the level of risk of possible victims. This report explores the police powers given to examine and recollect evidence. The report will also look at the accountability mechanism of the police in order to come with a conclusion whether they should be given extra powers or should there be a higher level of accountability. It then considers the Probation Service and the difficulties that rise in fulfilling its aims as well as maintaining the public credibility. It begins by questioning how realistic the achievement of ‘public protection’ is. It follows with an analysis of the two main aims, rehabilitation and reduction of crime, as approaches directing to fully protect the public. Then proceeds to examine the argument that joining forces between the professionals involved in criminal justice and the community at risk is needed in order to a proper protection to the public.

To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

That being said, the correctness of this decision by the high court in re-characterising the role of presumptions doesn’t come without its scrutiny. It is often argued that it was wrongful, confusing or downright unnecessary to address presumptions as the case of Ermogenous did. Despite its short falls, the re-characterised role which doesn’t completely rule out presumptions but negates sole reliance on them, provides more positive arguments than negatives. The decision itself was persuaded and influenced by many supportive cases before Ermogenous and followed by many cases after Ermogenous using the re-characterised role as precedent. The decision was made with consideration to all proceeding commercial and domestic cases and arguably the outcome has assisted a more fair and just approach to the law.

The appeal being heard by Lady Justice Arden and others in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is the appeal against the decision of the Hon Mr Justice Bean in the Queen 's Bench Division of the High Court.

The provided fact is mainly concerned intentional tort but, in a case, also there are also some possible element of negligence. The answer will be based on Peter’s (P) probable liability under tort law against three plaintiffs; a man (A), Matildca(M) and Sara (S). The answer will also try to discuss P’s possible defences.