Court Case Essay

ASSIGNMENT 1 CASE ASSIGNMENT (A) The Parties: (1.5 marks) (i) What are the names of the parties? The names of the parties involved are Mileva Novakovic, Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic (ii) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? Mileva Novakovic is the appellant for this case as the court was not in her favour in the original case, making Michael Stekovic the first respondent and Snezana Stekovic the second respondent. (B) The Court (1.5 marks) (i) What is the name of the court? New South

on a train in Alabama in 1931. These were landmark legal cases due to this incident dealing with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before suspects had even been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and hostile disruptive mobs. It is often regarded as a grave example of a miscarriage of justice in the U.S. legal system. The boys were all promptly arrested and urged into speedy rushed trials. The case was originally heard in Scottsboro, Alabama with no arraignment

HARGRAVE v. COMMONWEALTH, 201 S.E.2d 597 (1974). Description of Facts: Jerry Hargrave, plaintiff, was convicted of the attempted murder of Shirley Mae Gill (the victim), in a trial by the court under Va. Code. 1950 § 18.2-51. The plaintiff and Ms. Gill, his common-law wife, had been drinking in the earlier part of the day in question. Sometime later, they disputed about the plaintiff moving out of the home they shared to begin a relationship with her sister. At which time victim refused to surrender

Chapter 2 Reflection: The Various Court Cases The Juvenile System has been molded by various court cases over the years. Chapter two covers six of those landmark cases. In Kent v. United States, Morris Kent was arrested and charged with housebreaking, robbery, and rape. Kent was held at a juvenile detention facility for almost a week after admitting the charges then was transferred to an adult criminal court. Kent was entitled to a hearing, which he did not receive, access by his counsel to the

The first case I chose was Kent v. United States (1966). This case was about a 16 year old boy named Morris Kent Jr. Young Mr. Kent who was involved in a lot of incidents which involved robberies and rape was questioned by the police of his connection with a lady who robbed and raped in her apartment where his fingerprints were found. Kent admitted to some of the involvement. When he went to juvenile court where they waived jurisdiction and he would be tried as an adult. Kent was charged in a district

the circuit court erred by denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial when State’s witnesses discussed evidence that had been suppressed. Additionally, Caldwell asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Finally, Caldwell alleges that the imposition of two convictions and sentences for conspiracy violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The State contends that the circuit court did not err

1268. The Eleventh Circuit found that the Commission’s selection process in 2003-2004 “categorically excluded” certain faiths from the list of potential invocational speakers for meetings of the planning commission. Id. at 1282. In addition, the court found that the Commission’s selection of invocational speakers was not based on an impermissible motive because it included diverse religious institutions. Id. at 1278 ( citing Marsh 463 U.S. at 793-94). Similar to Pelphrey, Martin County’s selection

While circumstantial evidence may be used to prove knowledge, the State did not meet its burden of proof. When determining if a person had knowledge, a court will look at the following factors: “incriminating statements made by the defendant, incriminating actions of the defendant upon the police’s discovery of drugs among or near the defendant’s personal belongings, the defendant’s fingerprints on the packages containing the drugs, and any other circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs

must explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor. Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 310, 802 P.2d 1000, 1009 (1990); Allyn, 167 Ariz. at 195, 805 P.2d at 1016. National Bank of Arizona v. Thurston, 180 P.3d 977. The facts of this case are undisputed. Despite its relocation, Malone cannot show that the land art was modified by human interaction that would have made the land art artificial. Thus, Herrera is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. ARGUMENT

1. The first ground was that he believed the senior judges had wrongly interpreted the meaning of the word “inability” found in section 12 (1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The appellant thought the meaning of “inability” was to be restricted to the narrow interpretation allowing the reasons behind unfitness for duty to be limited to physical or mental infirmity as oppose to the wider interpretation of including any form of incapability to perform the role of a judge. He believed that