More handpicked essays just for you.
Medical considerations for native americans
Healthcare and native american culture
Medical considerations for native americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Medical considerations for native americans
The Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center case was then appealed by the plaintiffs. Facts: This is a civil case. The Plaintiff of this case is Timothy W. Gallagher, the parent of Jack O’Bannon Gallagher (deceased). Jack was sent to the emergency room after his high school nurse believed he might have abused a substance in which he was acting strangely and had elevated blood pressure. The decedent was omitted into the hospital and was seen by multiple medical professionals who evaluated both his physical health and mental state.
MILLERSBURG — A Wooster man on Wednesday was given a chance to avoid prison when he was sentenced to complete a treatment program for admittedly being in possession of methamphetamine. Shaun Hall, 38, 540 High St., previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to aggravated possession of meth. In exchange for his guilty plea, a related charge of aggravated trafficking in meth was dismissed. Hall had faced up to a year in prison for the charge, and Judge Robert Rinfret imposed a term of 11 months, but immediately suspended the period of incarceration in favor of five years of community control, which includes the condition he complete a treatment program at the Stark Regional Community Corrections Center.
To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
a. Writing the Discussion Section If you have thoroughly outlined your discussion section, writing it should be relatively easy. Because you have already spent time on the organization of your outline, you can focus on making the memo easy to read by adding transitional phrases and clear language. The Discussion section for the hypothetical memo follows. Note how it parallels the outline. The author transcribed the outline into prose, added transitional phrases, and changed the citations to short form where necessary.
Issue Case name: State of Oregon vs Kenneth James Harris, October 19th, 2017 Facts of the case: In the case there were two parties, one party including the defendant, Kenneth James Harris, and the State of Oregon. The dispute is based on the state of Oregon issuing a subpoena for the witness to come to trial for the case of the defendant, however, the witness failed to do so and was unavailable. The defendant argued that the only way the witness is unavailable is if the state did everything in their power to try to get the witness to court. The only thing the state did was provide the victims recording of the 9-1-1 call from the incident. Issue: Could the State of Oregon done more to produce the witness at trial?
District of Columbia v. Wesby 583 U.S.___ (2018) Procedural HISTORY The district court said the police officers did not have the right to make an arrest because they were invited to someone and lacked evidence to prove that she didn’t have permission to be there. They said that the police had no knowledge of such. Party goers also had to know they were not supposed to be there. The court of appeals upheld both decisions of the district courts.
Korematsu vs. US: The supreme court case of Korematsu vs. US was during ww2 and shortly after the attacks on pearl harbor. The supreme court decision was 6-3 in Korematsu 's favor, the impact showed that it was a violation oft he 14th amendment which said that everyone had equal protection under law. Plessy vs. Ferguson: The supreme court case of Plessy vs. Ferguson was the case that made segregation legal, the phrase during that time was "Separate but equal.
Korematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.
Smallwood v. State 680 A.2d 512 (MD. 1996) Procedural History: Dwight Ralph Smallwood, the defendant, was charged for rape in the first-degree, robbery with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, and assault with intent to murder. The defendant was also charged on a separate indictment for attempted murder in the second degree to his three victims each. The defendant pled guilty on October 11, 1994 to the charges of rape in the first-degree and robbery with a deadly weapon in the Prince George's County's Circuit Court. The circuit court had convicted the defendant to the charges of assault with intent to murder, all three counts of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. The second-degree murder charges were based on his attack on
In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933), John Roberts (born January 27, 1955), Sonia Sotomayor (born June 25, 1954) , Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948), Anthony Kennedy (born June 23, 1948), Elena Kagan (born April 28, 1960) , Samuel Alito (born April 1, 1950) , and Stephen Breyer (born August 15, 1938) are the eight current Supreme Court justices. There are only eight current Supreme Court justices because of the death of Antonin Scalia (born March 11, 1936 – deceased February 12/13, 2016). The current nominee for the position is Merrick Garland (born November 13, 1952) who was nominated March 16, 2016. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) Article III of the constitution is the article which discusses the
Marshall 's estate appealed the bankruptcy court 's decision to the federal district court. Federal Judge David O. Carter found in his 2002 opinion that J. Howard had made "some preliminary efforts through his lawyers to draw up a new trust for Anna Nicole 's benefit." This enraged his son, who was much older than Anna Nicole, and who did not believe she was entitled to his father 's estate. He allegedly forged and altered documents in order to create a trust that only he would have the right to inherit upon his father 's death, and which over time he had begun funneling assets into.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
