United States v. Lopez

It is essential that the “Bad Dog” sign or equivalent wording must be easily readable as well as posted in a prominent place. Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1970). The sign must be easily readable meaning that the sign is legible and capable of being read, not necessarily that the injured party must have been able to actually read and understand it. Registe v. Porter, 557 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In order to be relieved of liability, an owner must have a prominently placed “Bad Dog”

Can A Patient Be Forced to Take Medication If There Is No Medical Emergency? In this case, the patient John Rennie, a former pilot, had been in and out of mental health facilities in the state of New Jersey since his twin brother died in 1973 in an airplane accident. Between 1973 and 1977 he had been treated both inpatient and outpatient, numerous times, per the court record, at least 11 times. He had been diagnosed with various mental health issues which included paranoia, schizophrenia, and manic

statement under the Fifth Amendment for violation of Miranda rights, (1) the suspect must be in custody of law enforcement officials and (2) subjected to interrogation (3) without being first provided Miranda warnings. United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 4 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)). Here, the police officers that detained Mr. Knight are law enforcement officials; however, Mr. Knight was not in custody because he was stopped for a short and temporary amount of

During World War II, there were many posters to persuade individuals to help the workforce, some specifically targeting women. In one of the posters, “we can do it,” a woman named Rosie the Riveter is exhibited showing her muscles to display her strength. The main attention is the woman’s strong arm and caption to exemplify the strength of a female and how underestimated they are in the real world. The poster has very glaring colors and the bandana on the woman’s head makes her seem somewhat rebellious

In the landmark case of Korematsu v. United States the Supreme Court was correct in the ruling because the executive order that was issued became a law to protect the country from persons that had close ethnic ties to the enemy and made all people that the government deemed a threat to national security into prisoners. Although this was against moral standards, it was a necessity at the time to protect the country. While it may seem that it was just the Japanese that were prosecuted, it was also

if the incumbent priced its products substantially above competitive levels for a significant period of time” (“Microsoft: Court’s Findings…). Obviously, the rival companies such as, IBM and Apple, have found great fact, that in the most part, states that Microsoft is truly dismantling the competitive market. IBM and Apple created OS/2 and the Mac OS, respectively. Because of this “barrier of entry,” these top companies have not been able to “compete effectively with Windows” (“Microsoft:

medicate a sick defendant who has not consented to treatment, the government must demonstrate by presenting clear and convincing evidence, that such treatment is substantially likely to make the sick defendant well enough to stand trial. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180, 123 S. Ct.(2003). The government must demonstrate that

United States, 389 U.S. 347, 1967). Democratic legislation allows people to adjust browser controls and Google-account in such and decline tracking of your search traffic. It is also possible to switch off all of the Google Chrome web-services for maximum

Since the creation of the constitution in 1789, people have found ways to disobey the laws written by our founding fathers. Most crimes have punishments that give fair consequences to the misconduct of the person, but some cases prove otherwise. The Bill of Rights were created to override all other law and provide a basis for moral wrongs and rights. Each amendment was written with a purpose to shape our country and give individual citizens the rights they believed were naturally theirs. One case

deceitful things. The role the government has taken on freedom of speech is one of basing your right to free speech based on the effects of what you have said, in accordance with time manner and place, which is shown by the case Brandenburg v Ohio. In Brandenburg v Ohio, Brandenburg is a leader of the Ku Klux Klan who made a speech which was deemed harmful by The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act, which stated speeches that contained "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means