Voyles V. the State of Texas Court Case Summary

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

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?

The case is called Vosburg v. Putney which issue from Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Vosburg is the plaintiff who had been suffered an unforeseeable injury on his leg below his knee; However, before the injury are healing, a few days later, Vosburg’s classmate, Putney, who is the defendant had kicked Vosburg’s injury sport. Vodburg hadn’t feel any plain at first, but after a while, he felt the pain and have to underwent surgery. As a result, Vodburg had lost his injured leg, and he sue Putney for battery and assault.

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

In August 2009, the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans a non-profit organization that works to preserve the memory and reputation of soldiers who fought for the confederacy in the Civil War, applied to have a new specialty license plate issued by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicle. The proposed license plate had two confederate flags on it. Texas SCV sued in federal district court claiming their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.

On January, 23 1906 a white woman named Nevada Taylor was dropped off the bus station in Chattanooga, Tennessee at 6:30 p.m. only two and half blocks from her home. Little did she know she was being followed? A man grabbed her by the neck and drug her ten feet before throwing her over a fence. She screamed and struggled as he put a leather strap around her neck and threatened to cut her throat. Taylor accounts waking up about ten minutes later in torn and dirty clothes covered in bruises. Her doctor later confirmed she had been raped. She claimed to have never of saw the face of the attacker but he had a soft voice of a black man. During this time of prejudice, segregation and hatred towards Negros was just a way of life for the

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

By not overruling, court is in fact honoring a precedent previously held. Precedent is reflected in the obligation of lower courts to honor decisions made by higher courts (Vertical) and the binding of judges by decisions of earlier judges in similar matters (Horizontal/ Stare Decisis).

The case chosen for this research paper is the case of Lawrence V. Texas. In Houston, Texas police officers were dispatched to a private home, responding to a report of weapon disturbance. Inside the home they found John Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The two men were arrested and held overnight and charged with violating Texas law, specifically Texas law made the act of two people of the same sex engaging in certain intimate sexual conduct illegal. The two men were then convicted before a Justice of Peace. Lawrence V. Texas asks the question of whether the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner under the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was argued

In 1984, a protest was held during the Republic National Convention, in Dallas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and a few companies based in Dallas. Gregory Lee Johnson, at the time a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in the protest. When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused an American flag in kerosene and set it on fire. Johnson was charged with violation of Texas law, "intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas." His actions were classified as a class A misdemeanor. Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas, stating that his actions were protected by “symbolic

In Fisher V. University of Texas (2013), the Court finally established how affirmative action and racially-based university admission policies should be legally reviewed. Prior to this case, courts often purported how specific policies were constitutionally permissible or not, but they never fully established how courts should review these policies in the first place. In Gratz, the Court determined quota systems for different racial or ethnic identities is never acceptable under the Equal Protection Clause, while in Grutter the court ruled that utilizing race as a factor in a holistic process is acceptable. However, the court in Fisher concretely confirmed in what vein should racially-affected admission policy be judged in terms of constitutionality. Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion defined the landscape in which that admissions policy should be reviewed, and placed a significantly higher burden on universities to prove the constitutionality of their policy, forcing universities to invest more in research into diversity in their campus and to reshape the way they frame diversity

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public