In the case of Agee v. Brown, the decedent, Herbert G. Birck died in October 2009 and on November 2009, Roger L. Brown, a personal representative of the Estate of Herbert G. Birck and the trustee of the Herbert G. Birck Revocable Trust, filed a motion to dismiss the Agees’ petition to revoke validation of the last will of Herbert G. Birck.
The trial court of Florida had found that the prior will (executed in 2007) on which the Agees based their standing was invalid as opposing to public policy because Mr. Agee, had drafted that earlier will at the time he was the decedent’s attorney in which he and his wife were left a substantial inheritance. Brown argued that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar was violated by Mr. Agee because he is not
Issue: Whether public policy forbids the recovery by a plaintiff partner to an unmarried but cohabitating or relationship, from the other partners estate, for services rendered to or benefits conferred upon the other partner through the plaintiffs work in the operation of a joint business when the business proceeds were utilized to enrich the estate of the diseased
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
Nelson Johnson, author of “Boardwalk Empire: The Birth, High Times and Corruption of Atlantic City”, is a native of Hammonton, New Jersey. Johnson graduated Villanova Law School in 1974, after receiving his Bachelor’s degree in 1970 from St John’s University in New York, majoring in political science. Johnson began his political career in 1975: being elected to Atlantic County’s Board of Chosen Freeholders, where he served until 1985. Johnson had a successful private practice culminating in appointment to be a Superior Court Judge in 2005. It is interesting to note that Gromley, who nominated Johnson to Superior Court, is featured in his book. Of further interest is that Johnson served on Atlantic City’s Planning Board at the conception of casinos.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary for our understanding”(Lewis 35). It is reasonable to assume that the Court would not spend an exorbitant amount of time going through mounds of paupers’ petitions trying to find a case that seemed presentable. Statistically, about thirteen percent of petitions for certiorari on the regular docket are paupers’ petitions. In addition, only three percent of paupers’ petitions end up being granted. Nevertheless, Gideon’s case was treated just as equally as any other in forma pauperis case. Gideon’s handwritten documents were held for a month until Florida authorities replied to petition. A month passed by and Gideon’s petition was mailed to the office of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1962. A conference was held in June to discuss whether or not Gideon’s petition should be granted. Gideon’s case was granted three days after the conference and from that day forward Gideon’s fight for justice would ensue. In the eyes of Gideon, an attorney was a fundamental right of due process. However, his biggest ch...
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070. (1925)
This case deals with the Defendant's possession of a firearm while under a restraining order, and the charges incurred by the Defendant for such firearm possession. Under Texas law, the possession of a firearm by Mr. Emerson creates a perceivable threat to members of his family, thus creating a violation of the restraining order against him. Apparently common practice in Texas, the restraining order was filed by Mr. Emerson's wife in conjunction with the papers filed for divorce. The restraining order sought to enjoin Emerson from "engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings" (United 1). Under Texas law, unbeknownst to Mr. Emerson, the possession of a firearm during the time period of the restraining order constituted a direct violation of the restraining order, and Mr. Emerson was indicted on charges of such violation.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Burdeau request, it stated that Burdeau and his partners expected to present to the jury of the Western District of Pennsylvania a charge against candidate of a claimed infringement of § 215 of the Criminal Code of the United States for the deceitful utilization of the sends; that it was the aim of Burdeau and his partners, including certain mail station controllers participating with him, to present to the terrific jury certain private books, papers, memoranda, and so forth, which were the private property of the applicant. Farmers’ Bank owned the legal documents of the papers and had restrictive control of the solicitor It is affirmed that, amid the spring and summer of 1920, these papers were unlawfully seized and stolen from candidate by specific people partaking in and promoting the proposed examination so to be made by the excellent jury, under the bearing and control of Burdeau as uncommon aide to the Attorney General, and that such books, papers, memoranda, and so forth (Burdeau v. McDowell, pg 256 U. S.
ix Beit v. Probate and Family Court Department, 434 N.E.2d 642 (1982), at 643, citing The Trial at 290.