Parties: Charles Katz(Plaintiff) v. United States (Defendant) Facts: The Plaintiff Charles Katz was convicted of transmitting wagering information across state lines using a public telephone which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. &1084. He was being observed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) from February 19 to February 25, 1965 at set hours every day using the phone. After being suspicious the FBI placed listening devices on the telephone booth so they could record his calls.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
Actions that led community members to experience shock, per the extreme and outrageous conduct element of the rule, were categorized as “extreme and outrageous.” In KOVR-TV v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 37 Cal. Rptr.2d 431 (Cal. 1993), a report’s behavior was constituted as extreme out outrages, when he informed unaccompanied minors that their next-door neighbor killed her children and then committed suicide (Id. at 432, 433). Saxenmeyer (KOVR-TV reporter) “interrogated” three children, under the age of twelve without adult supervision, as to the activities happening outside (Id. at 432).
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
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
Per 3 Goss Vs. Lopez Supreme Court Case On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days. One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez.
Title of Case: Lau v. Nichols: 414 US 563 (1974) Plaintiff: Kinney Kinmon Lau Defendant: Alan Nichols, San Francisco Unified School District Setting: San Francisco, CA Major Issues Raised/ What is the case about? This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students.
Goldman v Weinberger is a case in which Goldman sued Weinberger because his freedom of religion was not exercised in the United States Air force. Goldman sued him because his religion called for him to wear a yarmulke to show that God was the highest form of life. For years he wore the accessory. He was later told to take off the accessory and he refused the proposal. A couple of days later “ In 1981 he was required to testify as a defense witness at a court-martial ” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger .
This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.
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.
Corporate Domination in Political Culture: An Analysis of “Dividing Citizens United: The Case v. The Controversy” by Lawrence H. Tribe Corporations have become an influential source of political financing as a result of the controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which stated that corporations are protected under the First Amendment to spend unlimited sums of money in support of campaign advertisements, so long as they are not directly connected with any political candidate (Murray Digby Marziani 1). In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, by allowing corporations to use general treasury funds for unlimited political advocacy, the Court overturned several financial precedents, in addition to allowing for-profit corporations to conduct financial affairs in secret through the use of independent expenditures (Groonwald 1). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling represents an unjust and unpatriotic view of American politics, which has led to severe corruption through the use of electioneering communications, secret money, and independent expenditures.
The Citizens United Ruling made by Supreme Court in 2010 only made the issue of money ruling the elections worse. Its main effects, stated in the video, “paved the way” for big corporations or unions to spend as much money as they feel necessary in elections and the political process. They can utilize this rule through advertisements, messages, and many different ways of communication to potential and up and coming voters. It changed the way campaigns were carried out by not only putting a bigger emphasis on the political spending from candidates and outside organizations, but also in a sense demerits the aspect of democracy, with having the amount money spent on a campaign be noticed more than the voices of the people. Voting does not really represent the country, but rather, represents the rich and powerful of the country.
An Opening Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102. This case is to be decided on four issues: 1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? 2) Sale.
“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.
