Jacobson v. United States

Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) Prior to the Child Protection Act of 1984, which made the purchase of child pornography illegal, Keith Jacobson of Nebraska, ordered child pornography from a bookstore. At the time of the transaction, the purchase was legal under both state and federal laws. Following the establishment of the Child Protection Act, Jacobson’s name was noted on a mailing list form the bookstore where he made the purchase. The discovery of his name led to Government agencies

history of “anti-vaccinationists” in the U.S., who among other challenges, argued compulsory vaccination was an infringement upon personal liberty and their right to choice (1, 2). In fact, it took a Supreme Court decision to ultimately assert whether a state mandating vaccination infringed upon the U.S. Constitution. Compulsory vaccination in the U.S. was established in the

suspect on the front porch. The officer could not legally approach the suspect as the front porch is considered an area of curtilage because this is an area that one feels that they have the right of privacy. The case that supports my decision is United States v. Dunn where police received a tip that Dunn’s barn contained alleged equipment to manufacture drugs. The barn was away from Dunns home which allowed for them to search the barn after not receiving a warrant. This case established four factors

enforcement field. So much so that it is widely used across multiple platforms. The court case, Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Where it was "held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person 's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant." (Kyllo v. United States. (n.d.) The use of the thermal imaging in this case was used to search a home interior for illegal

The Microsoft Antitrust Case A Case Study For MBA Students by Nicholas Economides* Revised April 2003 Abstract This case study discusses briefly the economic and legal issues pertaining to the antitrust case of the United States and a number of States against Microsoft. * Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012, (212) 9980864, fax (212) 995-4218, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/, neconomi@stern.nyu.edu Copyright ©, N. Economides 2 Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5

to define “A well regulated Militia Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Has been a constant battle between the courts and Citizens for years starting with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) In US VS. Miller the defendant Jack Miller and Frank Layton were accused of Knowingly, and Willfully transporting firearms over state borders without proper Documentation. The courts ruled against Miller they opinon

growing outcry from the public and leaders for something to be done to reduce the increasingly growing number of Japanese immigrants in the West Coast. Subsequent regulations placed on the Japanese in the United States made them aggravated. There was serious trouble brewing between the United States and Japan until the Japanese carried out attacks on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. After the attack on Pearl Harbor there was increased spread of propaganda from the press and local leaders against the

The Microsoft Monopoly I. Introduction United States vs. Microsoft is one the largest, most controversial antitrust lawsuits in American history. Many claim the government is wrongly punishing Microsoft for being innovative and successful, arguing that Windows dominates the market because of the product’s popularity, not because of malpractice by the parent company. Others argue in favor of the government, claiming that Microsoft’s practices conflict with the free market ideal. There are

Association in Philadelphia states, “On the whole, however, life in the relocation centers was not easy. The camps were often too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer. The food was mass produced army-style grub. And the interns knew that if they tried to flee, armed sentries who stood watch around the clock, would shoot them. FRED KOREMATSU decided to test the government relocation action in the courts. He found little sympathy there. In KOREMATSU VS. THE UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court justified

Louisiana (Konkoly, “Plessy v. Ferguson”). The