discovery motion and then dismissed the notice after the government stated that it would not comply with the discovery order. Supreme Court ruled incorrectly in the United States v. Bass: The rulings of the Supreme Court against the case of United States v. Bass were incorrect because of various reasons; the courts in the United States had charged many blacks with offenses which were death-eligible‚ which blacks were twice more than the whites. It is more often engaged in a plea bargains with the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Black people
G.R. No. L-46496 February 27‚ 1940 ANG TIBAY‚ represented by TORIBIO TEODORO‚ manager and propietor‚ and NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD‚ petitioners‚ vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION‚ INC.‚ respondents. LAUREL‚ J.: The Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the above-entitled case has filed a motion for reconsideration and moves that‚ for the reasons stated in his motion‚ we reconsider the following legal conclusions
Premium Law Labour relations
Braswell v. United States Introduction The Fifth Amendment of US Constitution provides a significant protection for accused persons. In particular‚ the Fifth Amendment provides guarantees for due process‚ protection against double jeopardy and against the self-incrimination. My paper focuses on the guarantee against the self-incrimination. Thus‚ the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. At the same time‚ it is not specified
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 418 U.S. 683 UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES‚ ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 73-1766. Decided By: Burger Court (1972-1975) Argued July 8‚ 1974. Decided July 24‚ 1974. * Defending Attorney for the President: James D. St. Clair Prosecuting Attorney’s for the United States: Leon Jaworski & Philip A. Lacovara On
Premium Richard Nixon President of the United States Supreme Court of the United States
Legal Brief 10/24/11 Citation: Charles T. Schenck v. United States‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1919 Issue: Whether distributing anti-conscription literature during war time is protected under the First Amendment. Relief Sought: Schenck did not want to be convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 so he appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Facts: Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America. Socialists believed that the war had been caused
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Jacobson v. United States Supreme Court of the United States 1992. 503 U.S. 540‚ 112 S.Ct. 1535. FACTS= On September 24‚ 1987‚ Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984‚ which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a "visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct." On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys
Premium United States Law Jury
Marquise Green United States Department of State v. Ray Part I Every year millions of young adults graduate from their respective high schools‚ pack up their belongings‚ leave their parental guided homes behind‚ and set off for college. The first thing that comes to mind when leaving the parents behind is their first true sense of freedom. The freedom to do what they please with no curfew‚ no guidelines‚ and no pre-disposed consequences for their actions is the freedom they’ve been working
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Privacy United States
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-29485 November 21‚ 1980 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE‚ petitioner‚ vs. AYALA SECURITIES CORPORATION and THE HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS‚ respondents. TEEHANKEE‚ J.: Before the Court is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision of April 8‚ 1976 wherein the Court affirmed in toto the appealed decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals‚ the dispositive portion of
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Income tax in the United States
Case Study: United States v. Salerno 481 U.S. 739 (1987) Using your text and the internet‚ in narrative format with a minimum of 500 words‚ outline the case of United States v. Salerno‚ 481 U.S. 739 (1987). Give the facts‚ issue‚ and court holding of the case. In the case of United States v. Salerno‚ Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno was arrested on charges of numerous RICO violations‚ and detained without bail. This case determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not violated the Due Process clause
Premium United States Constitution Grand jury Crime
Frye v. United States In 1923 defendant James Alphonso Frye was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed the decision. The defense counsel offered an expert witness to testify on the results of a systolic blood pressure deception test‚ which was the rudimentary precursor to the lie detector. That motion was denied. The defense counsel then offered that another test be conducted in the courtroom but were denied again. The prosecution then argued the “while the courts will go a long
Premium Expert Appeal Evidence law