Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al‚ 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Facts: Petitioner was John F. Tinker‚ Mary Beth Tinker‚ and Christopher Eckhardt‚ high school students in Des Moines‚ Iowa. In December 1964 several students were joined in protesting the Vietnam War. The form of protest was to wear a black armband for two weeks. When protesters arrived at school they were told to remove the arm bands or be suspended. Students took the suspension and did not return to
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Miranda V. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim‚ police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although‚ when he put his confession into
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Farwell‚ Benjamin CJU 134 Chp.8‚ Pg 286 Miranda V Arizona FACTS: On March 16‚ 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant‚ and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights‚ he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights‚ although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present
Premium Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Miranda v. Arizona Law
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Citation Eisner v. Macomber‚3 AFTR 3020‚ 252 US 189‚1 USTC ¶32 (US‚ 1920) Issue (1) Under the 16th Amendment‚ does Congress have the power to tax stock dividends received by the Macomber? (2) Are stock dividends considered income? Facts Mrs. Macomber owned 2‚200 shares of Standard Oil Company. In January 1916‚ Standard Oil Company declared a 50% stock dividend. Mrs. Macomber received an additional 1‚100 shares of stock with a $19‚877 par value. The shares represented a surplus for Standard
Premium Stock market Stock Supreme Court of the United States
The law is an ever revolving door. Bills and other aspects of the law are consistently being revised or cited in other laws. In all that backdrops H.R. 2232‚ Vaccinating all Children Act of 2015 includes many things. This act is to amend the Public Health Service Act to condition receipt by States (and political subdivisions and public entities of States) of preventive health services. It grants that on the establishment of State requirements for students in public elementary and secondary schools
Premium Vaccination Vaccine
Moore v. Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.‚ 76 Ark. App. 397‚ 65 S.W. 3d 490 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002) FACTS: Appellee (Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.)‚ who is in the business of setting up cigarette product displays‚ contracted to hire appellant (Moore) in 2001 to work at its Fort Smith office. Upon accepting employment‚ appellant signed an employment contract‚ a “Service work for Hire Agreement” with appellee that contained a non-compete agreement – in which appellant agreed that for one year following the
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
1. 4–3. Business Torts. Medtronic‚ Inc.‚ is a medical technology company that competes for customers with St. Jude Medical S.C.‚ Inc. James Hughes worked for Medtronic as a sales manager. His contract prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving Medtronic. Hughes sought a position as a sales director for St. Jude. St. Jude told Hughes that his contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit‚ alleging wrongful interference
Premium Contract Tort Reasonable person
Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: In March 1963‚ a kidnapping and sexual assault happened in Phoenix‚ Arizona. On March 13 Ernesto Miranda‚ 23‚ was arrested in his home‚ taken to the police station‚ recognized by the victim‚ and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. It included a typed disclaimer‚ also signed by Miranda‚ stating that he had “full knowledge
Premium