Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972) III. FACTS: On April 6th‚ 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident‚ under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug‚ medicine‚ instrument‚ or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit‚ alleging wrongful interference. Which type of interference was most likely the basis for this suit? Did it occur here? Explain. [Medtronic‚ Inc. v. Hughes‚ 2011 WL 134973 (Minn.App. 2011)] (See Intentional Torts against Persons.) Answer: For this suit‚ there is a wrongful
Premium Contract Tort Reasonable person
Casey (1992). The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe v. Wade (1973). The issue addressed was‚ if any state can force a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours‚ if married‚ require consent from her husband‚ and‚ if she’s a minor‚ have parental consent (Oyez). The case was a 5-4 decision in favor of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This decision reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. The Court upheld the 24-hour waiting period and the parental consent
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey Roe v. Wade
Lana Phan Case: Dred Scott v. Sandford Facts: This lawsuit involves Dred Scott‚ an African American slave and his owner due to the passing of his previous owner Dr. Emerson‚ John F. A. Sanford. John F.A Sanford is the brother to the wife of Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis on April 6‚ 1846 . Dred Scott’s legal suit is for assault and false imprisonment: “A slave could be punished and kept as property‚ but a free person could not
Premium Slavery in the United States American Civil War Slavery
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller‚ operator
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
The film V for Vendetta directed by James McTeigue‚ is a story about shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" who along with his companion Evey Hammond‚ completes V’s vendetta of blowing up parliament and removing the governments’ control. In the film an idea that was worth learning about was that ideas are very powerful and live beyond the death of individuals. This is shown throughout the film by the use of costume‚ dialogue and symbolism. Costume is illustrated in V for vendetta by the
Premium V for Vendetta
517 20 August 2013 Leonard v. Pepsi Cola The Assigned case that I am to discuss is Leonard v. Pepsi Cola. In this paper I will discuss the facts of the case‚ the history‚ issues the court had to decide‚ the holding or the answer to the questions‚ the reasoning the court used to justify the decision‚ and finally the results and the judgment. The Facts is the Leonard sued Pepsi Co for refusing a formal demand to honor its offer. The history of this case is; Pepsi Co ran a promotional
Premium United States Civil procedure Plaintiff
abide the rules of bearing arms. Militia can be defined as‚ “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers” according to Gary the Gun Nut’s post on Thomhartmann.com. In the District of Columbia v. Heller case‚ gun control was the purpose problem. The case resulted in protecting the “Second Amendment of an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes‚ such as self-defense within the home‚...” in which was a
Premium
Obergefell V. Hodges “It is better to be hated for what you are then to be loved for what you are not‚” this was said by Andre Gide and there has never been a more true statement. In this paper the topic of Obergefell V. Hodges will be discussed. Obergefell V. Hodges is the court case that talks about gay marriage. Many are against the topic‚ but maybe they should open their minds a little more and accept that love is love. Though many know of the court case‚ not all people know the history of
Premium Homosexuality Same-sex marriage Marriage
University‚ including myself. However‚ this was not always the case. There was a point in time where blacks and whites could not attend the same school‚ or even use the same facilities. The court decision that made separate facilities legal‚ was Plessy v Ferguson. It allowed for separate areas for blacks and whites‚ which forced blacks to create their facilities‚ like Historically Black Colleges and University. Later‚ in 1954‚ Plessy v Ferguson would be overturned‚ which allows all races to coexist
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Black people African American