1. The Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Ochampaugh v. Seattle 588 P. 2d 1351 (Wash. 1979) Facts Ordinary pond owned by the city Popular with area residents for fishing and swimming The two boys were familiar with the pond and had gone there before. Neither boy could swim. There were no warning signs around the pond. The pond‚ while man-made‚ was in existence before the city purchased the land. Issue Was the pond a “trap” or extraordinarily dangerous enough to render it an “attractive nuisance” to children and thus create
Premium Debut albums Body of water Tort
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
the federal benefits that opposite-sex married couples do‚ such as federal tax benefits‚ immigration status‚ and Social Security benefits. The Supreme Court of the United States has before them a great decision to make in the case of United States v. Windsor. This will set precedent in United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. The court will deliberate on the section of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined
Free Same-sex marriage Marriage Homosexuality
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium
into the garage and put her in his car‚ he then turned the engine on and poisoned her with carbon monoxide. Tracey’s mother was not involved in this‚ Latimer denied killing her at first but he later then confessed for his actions .In the trial R. V Latimer (1997) Robert was convicted for second degree murder although the Supreme
Premium English-language films Family American films
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga Case Name: California v Hodari Citation: 499 U.S. 621 Date Decided: 1991 Area of Law: Fourth Amendment Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court‚ in which justice Rehnquist‚ CJ‚ joined and White‚ Blackmun‚ O’ Conner‚ Kennedy‚ and Souter‚ JJ‚ joined. Stevens‚ filed a dissenting opinion‚ in which Marshall‚ J.‚ joined Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Name: Michigan v. Tyler 436 U.S. 499(1978) Issue: Do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to Firefighters in an active Arson Investigation? Facts: In the case of Michigan v. Tyler the firefighters had had legal reason to initially enter the premises of Tyler’s Auction house on January 22‚ 1970‚ which was to extinguish the fire and surmise the start of said fire. Upon extinguishing flames during a preliminary search containers containing flammable liquid were found in the premises. These
Premium Court United States Supreme Court of the United States