The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
of Right to Counsel In the 16th and 17th century‚ the law did not allow or provide for the use of attorneys in any court case‚ except for treason cases. It wasn’t until the 18th century in which the defendants were allowed to have an attorney. The constitution allowed for the use of attorneys‚ but most defendants represented themselves‚ while
Premium United States Constitution Law United States
there is to know about judicial review. So when it comes to the case of Marbury V. Madison I knew the basics of the case but I did not know the reasons and all the facts. When I picked this case it was out of confusion behind the events that gave the Supreme Court its powers. Through examining the legal‚ environmental and personal perspective of the case we can get to the bottom of why they ruled way they did. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind because it was questioning who had
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Marbury v. Madison
Jonathan Crespo Mr. Mouser Government 5/11/2018 United States v Nixon In the case of United States v. Richard Nixon‚ seven of Nixon’s closest aides were convicted of many crimes in the Watergate affair. The name of the aides that were convicted are John N. Mitchell‚ former Attorney General; H. R. Haldeman‚ John D. Ehrlichman and Gordon C. Strachan‚ former White House aides; Robert C. Mardian‚ a former aide to Mr. Mitchell‚ and Kenneth Wells Parkinson. Nixon was named by the Watergate grand jury
Premium Richard Nixon President of the United States Watergate scandal
Species from genus Vaccinum such as V. uliginosum‚ V. angistifolium‚ V. mystillus‚ V. macrocarpon Ait contains phytochemicals with antiproliferative activity against cancer cell lines. The first study based on anticancer activity from cranberry extracts published in 1996 where inhibition of polyamine synthesis and induction of expression of the enzyme quinone reductase shown (Bomser and others 1996). Subsequently‚ an extract containing hydrosoluble phenols from a comercial freeze-dried cranberry
Premium Cancer Bacteria Oncology
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Case Study: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Joshua Weisman Webster University HRMG 5700 QD F2 In the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc.‚ Joseph Oncale was the victim of repeated harassment‚ sexual‚ physical and mental‚ from at least three members of the work crew‚ of which two had a supervisory position over him. When Oncale brought his complaints to the supervisors‚ they took no noticeable actions against the harassers and‚ after he had experienced
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Pleading Court
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
Case Name: National Legal Services Authority (Petitioner) v Union of India & Ors. (Respondent). Court Name: Supreme Court of India. Bench: J.‚ K.S. Radhakrishnan & J.‚ A.K. Sikri. Date of Decision: April 15‚ 2014. Citation: AIR 2014 SC 1863. Statement of Facts: 1. The National Legal Services Authority filed a writ petition no. 400 of 2012 seeking relief that Hijras/ Eunuchs/ Transgenders (herein after refer as TG) be given legal status as ‘third gender’ with legal and constitutional provision.
Premium Human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights Law