Citation: Powell V U.S. No. 405‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1968‚ 392 U.S. 514‚ 88 S. Ct. 2145 L. Ed 2d 1254‚ 1968 U.S. 1140. Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December‚ 1966 for public intoxication‚ which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism‚ which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior‚ a
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
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 1 Case 2 Case 3 Court and Year Full High Court 2007 District Court of Queensland 2010 New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011 Relevant Facts Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000 Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments After substantial period of default‚ banks sells sold property at auction for $150000. After deduction of sale‚ Bank seeks payment of the guarantor Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges
Premium Law Real estate Jury
The March for Life Protest In 1973‚ Jane Roe filed a court case against Henry Wade in which she accused Wade of impregnating her by sexual assault (Glazer n. pag). During the case‚ the U.S. Supreme Court first argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention abortion‚ but rather it guarantees a privilege to individual freedom under due process (“Supreme Court Rules on Roe V. Wade‚ The” par. 5). The state of Texas argued that it had convincing motivations to protect the life of an unborn child
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
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
v. Cruikshank (1876). This case took place during the Reconstruction period of the south in Grand Parish‚ Louisiana. During this time there were many changes being made in the state and local government positions. In 1873 the governor of Louisiana appointed a new Judge
Premium United States Constitution United States United States Bill of Rights
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
this case was later appealed in 2010 by Mr Homer. Heard in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal‚ the judgements given by Maurice Kay LJ‚ Richards LJ and then Mummery AJ all affirmed the previous decision‚ contending that Mr Homer’s case was not one of particular disadvantage‚ but one of a claim for more favourable treatment on account of age. Issues/Law- What does the law assume and why? – have I covered law relating to justification and discrimination? The law influencing this case/of which
Premium Violence Nuclear power Electricity generation
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
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