United States courts of appeals Essays

Citation. 555 US _ (2008) DOCKET NO. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . BRIEF FACT OF SAMMARY : Michael Pulido was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state court for his involvement in the shooting of a gas station attendant during the course of a robbery. He claimed that he was only involved in the robbery after the shooting had taken place. FACTS : On appeal day Mr. Pulido explained to the jury that the instructions were a maitake and allowed a jury to convict

of Oracle v. Google by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has posed some severe concern for the Software industry. The decision of the court to grant copyright protection to the Java Application Programme Interface (API) is seen by many as a divergence from the traditional copyright policy of keeping ideas free as the building block of creativity as laid down in Baker v. Seldon over a century ago. What concerns many is the tendency of the court to encroach into functional

standard in contrast to the Fifth, Ninth, and Third Circuits discussed above. For instance, the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Sliwo illustrates its differing application of Jackson to sufficiency challenges under the identical charges as with Rubio. United States v. Sliwo, 620 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 2010). The Sliwo case also highlights the important consequence of the differing application under Jackson: it reversed the defendant’s convictions instead of affirming them as the Fifth Circuit did with Rubio

The court system in the United States is divided into many different kinds of courts that serve different purposes. Some of the courts within the US court system that will be discussed in this paper are the United States Supreme Court and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Since the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land a special emphasis will be placed in this court to cover its décor, decorum, and meanings. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court of all courts in the United States

the legal steps that must be taken to appeal a court decision, such as a judge’s order or a jury verdict. Typically, appeals are filed when it is believed that the judge made some sort of mistake when reaching the final decision in a case. Appeals may not be filed simply because one of the parties does not like the court’s decision—there must be some mistake upon which to base the appeal. There are specific rules that apply to appeals at the administrative, state, and federal level, and these rules

upcoming hearing (In re Gault, n.d.). At the hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gault into the custody of the State Industrial School until age 21 or discharged by due process of law (In re Gault, n.d.). Arizona State law at the time did not allow for any appeals in juvenile cases, therefore, Gault’s parents petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The

requiring an individual to appear in court and to give testimony or to bring material to be used as evidence. Some subpoenas mandate that book, papers, and other items be surrendered to the court" (Schmalleger 301). A court, Grand Jury, legislative body, or Administrative Agency uses a subpoena to compel an individual to appear before it at a specific time to give testimony. An individual who receives a subpoena but fails to appear may be charged with contempt of court and subjected to civil or criminal

LEXIS 155988 the court where the court finds error in the application of the law the Respondent 's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further as well addressing evidence rule 405 the order of that Petitioner 's application for federal writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. It is further as well the ordered that Petitioner 's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. It is further any motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED. The court found that originally

The case Foster v. Chatman is a very difficult and unpleasant case. The case highlights the embarrassing and disgraceful episodes of the United States’ history. Racism, discrimination and prejudice have occurred, since the inception of the country. The United States’ pledge of allegiance reads, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This statement is a very

• Missouri v. Seibert- (2004) A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession. • Moran v. Burbine- (1986) the respondent was apprehended by police for murder. While in custody, but before any arraignment proceedings, the respondent waived his right to counsel and confessed to the crimes. Unbeknownst to the respondent

On August 8, 2009, Sonia Maria Sotomayor became the first justice of Hispanic descent to be seated on the United States Supreme Court. Her upbringing in a Puerto Rican household in the Bronx, significantly shaped her decision making first on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1991-1997) and later, on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1997 - 2009). Today, Sotomayor continually advocates for the basic rights of Americans; this is demonstrated

Alter ego is defined as, “Legal doctrine whereby the court finds a corporation lacks a separate identity from an individual or corporate shareholder, resulting in injustice to the corporation’s debtors. Finding alter ego gives the court cause to pierce the corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation” (Alter Ego. LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The case of GRUENDL v. OEWEL PARTNERSHIP INC. the overall partnership of the OPL is OPI and not

Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 ruled that Ernesto Miranda is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional

Weddington and Linda Coffee, respectively, McCorvey sought to obtain an abortion from the state of Texas by appealing to their Supreme Court. The lower court’s decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and was accepted for review in 1972. The court hearing opening statements on October 11, 1972, and the judgment of Roe v. Wade was issued seven months later on January 22, 1973. In their decision, Supreme Court justices ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell under the protection of the right

autrefois convict), but also judicial discretion to stay proceedings as abuse as abuse of process. This was the position held by the court in the case of Connelly v DPP {1964}

into reciting the pledge this is a violation of the SCS and personal rights. The result of removing this phrase would allow the pledge to fill its purpose as a unifying demonstration of patriotism, and support the Constitutional value that church and state should be separate. Thus, "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance. Thanks for reading, Vote Pro. Sources: (1) http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000074 (2)

evidence against you (US Constitution, Sixth Amendment). The Miranda Rights, created from the Miranda V Arizona (1966) case has influenced the United States government by the creation of the Miranda Warnings, which is used nationwide by the police to inform the

(Not-So-Secret) War on Moms: How the Supreme Court Took Protections Away from Pregnant Workers" by Ariela Migdal, Ariela talks about the Supreme Court's decision 5-4 that an arrangement in the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) giving specialists time off to watch over their own particular genuine wellbeing conditions, including pregnancy and labor, can't be implemented by state representatives in harms claims against their open managers. In Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland unprotected open representatives

an you imagine yourself having to start your daily school routine with a prayer? This became a serious question to be taken up by the Supreme Court of the US, in November of 1951. Following an increase in in juvenile crime (many believe caused by the Korean War). The New York Board of Regents adopted a prayer to be recited in NY public schools (Dierenfield 67). The prayer was established because “...the regents believed that such a program would ensure that school children would acquire ‘respect