Korematsu v. United States

The opinion of Justice BINDEROFF: According to Article I, Section 8(3) of the United States Constitution, Congress is granted the power “to regulate commerce with foreign countries, as well as among the several states…;” this enumerated power is what the Commerce Clause describes. This Article has been used to justify many instances in which Congress has exercised its power to regulate commerce, especially among states. In this regard, there has been a myriad of instances in which such exercise

Introduction Consumer buying behavior has became great interest to the marketing researches (Ali & Hasnu 2013, p. 1). Understanding the consumer buying behavior unable the mall managers plan effective marketing strategies. Researchers have identified number of different factors that influence consumer buying behavior. Retail environmental factors is one of these factors. This literature review seeks to identify the retail environmental factors that influence consumer buying behavior. The structure

Shivani Patel Case Brief Schenck V. United States 1. Case Title: The title of the case is Schenck V. United States; it took place in 1919. The plaintiff is the United States and the defendant is Charles Schenck. 2. The law: This case involves the Espionage Act and the first amendment. United States convicted Schenck on the basis of violating the Espionage Act, specifically Section 3, which states when the United States is at war, people can not willingly cause or attempt to cause disloyalty and

senate with a unanimous vote of 51-1 and the House with a vote of 242-0. President Harrison signed it into law in 1890. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act authorized government to make it illegal to make a “restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations”. Those that did not abide by this law resulted in a $5,000 fine and a year in prison. “The Sherman Act was designed to reestablish competition but was loosely worded and unsuccessful to define terms as “trust,” “combination

After reviewing each the case of Olmstead v. United States, Nardone v. United States, Goldman v. United States, Berger v. New York and Katz v. United States I have found that each one of these case dealt with wiretapping and whether it was legal for the police or government to tap into their phone lines and use the evidence found in tapping in court as evidence in order to get a guilty verdict. For example, in the case of Olmstead v. United States individuals were convicted of liquor related crimes

b. New Mexico i. Gross Receipts Tax - Generally The state gross receipts tax is a tax on the privilege of engaging in business in New Mexico. “Engaging in business” means carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with the purpose of direct or indirect benefit,” with certain exceptions inapplicable to the Company’s facts. The tax is assessed against the gross proceeds of a business. For purposes of the GRT, a presumption exists that all receipts of a person engaging in business are subject

State v. Kirchoff 156 Vt. 1, 587 A. 2d 988 (1991) pg. 246 FACTS: In 1982, defendant purchased thirty-nine acres of land, consisting of woods, swamp, and meadows, in an isolated part of Lincoln, Vermont. He put up several "no trespassing" signs where the road turned into his driveway and posted his land with signs that said, "POSTED Private Property. Hunting, Fishing, Trapping or Trespassing for Any Purpose Is Strictly Forbidden. Violators Will Be Prosecuted," and recorded that fact with the town

will significantly further” those interests. Third, the government must demonstrate that “the involuntary medication is necessary to those interests.” Fourth, it must demonstrate that the “administration of drugs is medically appropriate.” Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 169, 180-181 (2003).

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

and the circumstances surrounding both. In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court abandoned the clear and present danger test, stating that only speech that produces or is likely to produce violent actions or illegal behavior can be banned (Cohen 32). The Court argued a difference between advocacy of ideas and incitement of unlawful conduct exists – though the Court did not define it. During this time, the United States was not concerned with being overthrown by insurgents or overcome with