Henry V by William Shakespeare‚ is supposed to have been written about 1599. It expresses the story of King Henry V of England‚ focusing on events surrounding the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years’ War. The play is the final part of a series of plays‚ following Richard II‚ Henry IV‚ Part 1 and Henry IV‚ Part 2. The original audiences would consequently be familiar with the title character‚ which was depicted in the Henry IV plays as a wild‚ undisciplined lad known as "Prince Harry". In Henry
Premium Henry V of England Hundred Years' War Henry IV of England
Mapp v. Ohio On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in a Cleveland‚ Ohio suburb received information that a suspect of a bombing case‚ as well as some illegal betting equipment‚ might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter‚ but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. Two officers left‚ and one remained. Three hours later‚ the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. Mapp asked
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
CASE 3 It is late June‚ and Sandra‚ head of operations at Mintendo‚ and Bill‚ head of sales of We “R” Toys‚ are about to get together to discuss production and marketing plans for the next six months. Mintendo is the manufacturer of the popular Game Girl hand-held electronic game that is sold exclusively through We “R” Toys retail stores. The second half of the year is critical to Game Girl’s success‚ because a majority of its sales occur during the holiday shopping period. Sandra is worried
Premium Toy Assembly line Production and manufacturing
29. Introduction 30. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1] evinces the accuracy of Gooley’s observation that the separate legal entity doctrine was a "two-edged sword".[2] At a general level‚ it was a good decision. By establishing that corporations are separate legal entities‚ Salomon’s case endowed the company with all the requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level‚ however‚ it was a bad decision. By extending the
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
large pharmaceutical firms have a centralized R&D unit. R&D trends in Pharmaceutical industry: In the past‚ increase of R&D costs for a new drug (for one: 1975: € 150m / 1987: € 344m / 2000: € 870m 1/3 of all medicines generate revenues above R&D costs) Recent development of “new sciences” and growing trend to “personalized medication”. This evolution tends to increase the importance of Universities and smaller biotechnology firms in the R&D process as they are generally more innovative
Free Pharmacology Pharmacy Medicine
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia tells me in this case that the Constitution of the United States then were unfair and unjust to the Loving Family. Here we have two people of different race‚ obviously in love and married. Although the state of Virginia had its own objective concerning interracial marriages‚ I feel that our Constitution should have enforced what laws were emplaced within The Constitution of the United States. That’s why they were written to protect and to keep good law and
Free United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Marriage
August 29). Nation’s Restaurant News‚ Vol. 28‚ issue 34‚ p.1 Kubasek‚ N.‚ K.‚ Brennan‚ B.A.‚ and Browne‚ M.N. (n.d.). The legal environment of business: A critical thinking approach (3rd Ed). In R. Hartigan (Ed.). Ethics and legal concepts for business. Upper Saddle River‚ NJ: Peason/Prentice Hall. Liebeck’s v. McDonald’s Rest.‚ P.T.S. Inc. and McDonald’s International‚Inc. No. CV-93-02419‚ 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist.Ct. August 18‚ 1994). Press‚ A.‚ & Carroll‚ G. (1995‚ March 20). Are lawyers burning
Premium Tort Burn Damages
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
I. Katz v. U.S. 347 (1967) II. Procedural History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. III. Facts: The petitioner‚ Charles Katz‚ was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. In order to collect evidence against Katz‚ federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Texas v. Johnson (1989) In 1984‚ following a protest march through the streets of Dallas‚ Texas against the policies of the Reagan Administration‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was handed an American flag. Outside the Dallas City Hall‚ Johnson through the flag onto the ground‚ poured kerosene on it‚ and set fire to it. Many protesters around Johnson began a chant of‚ "America‚ the red‚ white‚ and blue‚ we spit on you!" While many protesters agreed with what Johnson had done‚ there were several others who
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States