Name: Whittaker v. Sandford, 85 A. 399 (1912) Facts: The plaintiff and her husband were part of a religious sect that had origins in Syria, but decided to return to the United States by boat. The defendant, who was the leader of the religious sect, made an agreement with the plaintiff to take her and her husband back to the U.S. on a yacht. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not allow her to leave the yacht when it had reached the port in the U.S. by denying her a boat to reach the shore. Issue: 1) Is the defendant liable for restraining the plaintiff from leaving the yacht against her will 2) when the defendant refused the plaintiff the only possible means of reaching the shore 3) even though the defendant did not employ physical
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
A rehabilitation clinic dismissed two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The two counselors, including Smith, sought unemployment benefits. Possessing peyote is a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The rehabilitation clinic denied the counselors unemployment on grounds of misconduct. Smith filed suit again the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the rehabilitation clinic’s verdict. The court stated that Smith’s religious use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Employment Division, Department of Resources appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and use of peyote is a crime. The Supreme Court returned the case back to Oregon State Courts to determine if Oregon law prohibits the use and possession of peyote for religious purposes. Oregon State court ruled that consumption of illegal drugs for religious purposes was still considered illegal; however, they were also aware that this ruling also violated the First Amendment. The main issue is whether the government can prevent the religious use of peyote under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if a law prohibits it for everyone else. In addition, can the state deny unemployment benefits to someone who has been fired for using peyote for religious purposes?
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
a. but most admiralty cases can be brought in state courts unless qualify under diversity.
Dred Scott v. Stanford was the most fundamental case in American history dealing with the rights of African Americans. This case tested the Missouri Compromise and challenged the issues of slavery and national citizenship. Dred Scott was a slave owned by Dr. John Emerson, who constantly traveled in and out of free and slave states with Scott. Originally Emerson had Scott in Missouri, a slave state, and then moved over to Illinois, a free state, and lastly to Wisconsin territory, also free. While in the Wisconsin territory, Scott married and had two daughters, which was unique due to the fact that slaves in the south were prohibited from being married legally, further validating Scott's implicit freedom. Eventually Emerson moves Scott and his
For a belief to be justified it needs three principles: reliability, coherence, and no better alternatives to the situation. If a belief does not have reliability it is untrustworthy. For instance let’s suppose someone were to tell you that they live in a massive and luxurious mansion and you find it difficult to imagine or believe. You want to come over and they avoid the question and come up with excuses, so you can never actually see the mansion with your eyes, you basically do not have proof. If the person lives in a mansion they should eventually display evidence of it either by inviting you over or maybe showing pictures of it, but if the person never does and intentionally avoids it, then it is reasonable for us to doubt if this person really lives in a mansion and our belief has reliability. So let’s now suppose we have background information on this person, such as we know their income, occupation and their personal liabilities to the bank. This person works as a janitor and makes $22,000 a year, and he has debt obligations which include the loan on his car worth $10,000 and his credit card expenses have reached a sum of $5,000, we also know that he has trouble paying off his credit and tends to put it off. This person is clearly depicting his dependency on credit and this indicates the unavailability of cash when he
The petitioner, Troy Leon Gregg, in this case had been charged with the armed robbery and murder of two men (Findlaw, 2015). Gregg was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of murder, after which the judge instructed jurors that it could decide between a sentence of either life in prison, or the death penalty, and they could only do so if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders were committed during the commission of other felonies, that Mr. Gregg murdered these two men for their property, and that the murders themselves were in any way depraved, vile, or inhuman (Findlaw, 2015). The jury found Mr. Gregg guilty of committing the murders during the commission of other felonies, and for the victims’ property, and came back with a sentence of death (Findlaw, 2015).
Johnson V. M’Intosh case illustrates how the developing United States established the ownership of the Native American land that is now the United States of America. In the case, Johnson had inherited land that was previously owned by a Native American tribe. On the other hand, M’Intosh claimed ownership of the same land because his family had purchased the land from the United States. In the end, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the favor of M’Intosh ownership of the land, because the land is federally owned by the United States government. Chief Justice, John Marshall bases his decision on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a law that allowed colonial powers to claim newly discovered land. As stated in the course readings, Uneven Roads; the text goes onto explain that Marshall didn’t believe that the Indians had any ‘right of occupancy’ and are not entitled to the ownership of their land. Shaw further
Is cruel and unusual and punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the constitution?
On February 11, 1983 Robert Augustus Harper, Jr., filed Amicus Curiae on the case of Joyce Bernice Hawthorne v. State of Florida, 740 So.2d. 770. This was the third appearance of Hawthorne in the First District Court of Appeal of Florida for First degree murder, second degree murder and now manslaughter.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
J.H. Whittaker and Sons is a confectionery company based in the Wellington suburb of Porirua. Whittaker’s long history in New Zealand has made the company stand out from other companies of its kind and the business has remained both family owned and operated since it was established in 1896. (Whittakers, 2011) Whittaker’s is renowned for the production of its superior quality chocolate products, with over ninety products in the Whittaker’s range currently for sale on shelves around New Zealand. Whittaker’s is a big player in the national confectionery market, currently holding more than a third of the New Zealand chocolate market share. (Crossley, 2013). In addition to its production of chocolate confectionery, Whittaker’s product range also includes a selection of ice creams and chewy confectionery bars.