UNITED STATES of America‚ Plaintiff-Appellee‚vs.Ronald Stephen SNEEZER‚ Defendant-Appellant. 900 F.2d 177 April 2‚ 1990. Sneezer was indicted for aggravated sexual abuse‚ in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1153 and 2241(a). At his jury trial‚ the following evidence was presented. Sneezer stopped a seventeen-year-old girl walking along a highway and forced her into his car. After driving a few miles‚ Sneezer stopped and took his victim to a spot about 150 feet off the highway. There Sneezer threatened
Premium Jury United States Criminal law
Table of Contents List of Figures Title Page Number Figure 1: Assessment on specific proviso in PPPA 5-6 Figure 2: Proviso extracts from Sedition Act 1948 7 Figure 3: Extract of Article 10 7-8 Figure 4: International test on Sedition Act 1948 9-10 Figure 5: Recent issues regarding censorship on print media 11-12 1.0 Introduction According to Oxford dictionary‚ the term “Censor” has been defined as an action to remove parts of
Premium Freedom of speech Censorship
Law Tort Law A tort is an act/omission in instances where by law there is a duty owed by one party/entity as against another to do or refrain from doing an act and a failure to comply results in civil liability To Establish Tort One Must Have: Duty of Care/Duty being owed Breach Harm/ Damage caused by that Breach Difference between Crime and a Tort Crimes are omissions or acts against the state while a tort is against private entities. Crime- Fine/ Imprisonment while in Tort- Damages/
Premium Tort Negligence
1972 to build a high-rise apartment building which was subsequently (in 1978) sold to the appellant‚ Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36. Four years after the sale‚ in 1982‚ the appellant noticed potential problems with the mortar and masonry work on the exterior cladding of the building and hired an engineering firm‚ along with the original architects‚ to inspect the building and advise them. The appellant was assured the mortar cracks were not serious and could be fixed for a comparatively small
Premium Tort Property Real estate
Prefatory: Cases written by Justice V. V. Mendoza will be marked with an asterisk (*). Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Due Process Request of Radio-TV coverage of plunder cases of Estrada Perez v. Estrada A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC (June 29‚ 2001) * Digest of this case is particularly longer because of the novelty of the issue. FACTS: The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter requesting the SC to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Criminal law
November 27‚ 2014 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-42091 November 2‚ 1935 GONZALO CHUA GUAN‚ plaintiff-appellant‚ vs. SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA‚ INC.‚ and SIMPLICIO OCAMPO‚ ADRIANO G. SOTTO‚ and EMILIO VERGARA‚ as president‚ secretary and treasurer respectively of the same‚ defendants-appellees. Buenaventura C. Lopez for appellant. Domingo L. Vergara for appellees. BUTTE‚ J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in an action
Premium Mortgage Debt
A. The name and citation of the case (5 points) Elaine C. Bergler‚ Respondent‚ v. Roland M. Bergler‚ Appellant. (1310) CA 01-00460. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK‚ APPELLATE DIVISION‚ FOURTH DEPARTMENT 288 A.D.2d 880; 732 N.Y.S.2d 616; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11324 B. The name of the court which decided the case Appeal from Order of Supreme Court‚ Erie County‚ Rath‚ Jr.‚ J. - Summary Judgment C. The year of the decision November 9‚ 2001‚ Decided / November 9‚ 2001‚ Filed
Premium
Before JOLLY‚ JONES and BARKSDALE‚ Circuit Judges.John Escamilla (argued)‚ Rodriguez‚ Tovar‚ Calvillo & Garcia‚ McAllen‚ TX‚ for Plaintiffs-Appellants. David C. Duggins (argued)‚ Trek C. Doyle‚ Clark‚ Thomas & Winters‚ Austin‚ TX‚ for Chrysler Corp. David Richard Tippetts‚ Wilson‚ Elser‚ Moskowitz‚ Edelman & Dicker‚ Houston‚ TX‚ for TRW Inc. and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems‚ Inc. Keith Neill Uhles‚ Ewing Edben Sikes‚ III‚ Jon Daniel Brooks‚ Royston‚ Rayzor‚ Vickery & Williams‚ Brownsville‚ TX‚ for
Premium Automobile Mobile phone Text messaging
have any reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Brown was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. The Supreme Court heard the case and overturned the decision citing the precedent set in the Terry vs. Ohio case. It stated that Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."(Cf. Terry v. Ohio). The Supreme Court also stated that the officer’s actions were not justified
Premium
AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW A public authority is an authority that performs public functions; they are creatures of Statute and derive its authority from statute. The source of its power being that of statute distinguishes public from private. Judicial Review is the jurisdiction of the superior courts to review laws‚ decisions‚ acts and omissions of public authorities in order to ensure that they act within their given powers
Premium Law