search a student while law enforcement officers must have probable cause. In the cases of Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding‚ the issues of search and seizure of a student in school are laid out in different scenarios that clearly portray the difference between a constitutional search and an unconstitutional search. The concept of reasonable suspicion is sufficient for the extended search in the Best V. New Jersey case because the student was in clear violation of school policy and the search was
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Police
The KWETEY v. BOTCHWAY AND ANOTHER case explains the principle of “you cannot give what you do not have” which has its Latin as “Nemo dat quod non habet”. In this case‚ the bank‚ wanted to sell a boat that rightfully belonged to Kwetey and this was established by the court to be against the principle stated supra. The facts in Kwetey v Botchway are that the plaintiff had mortgaged his house to the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) to secure a loan to replace a broken marine engine in a 40-footer
Premium Breach of contract Breach of contract Damages
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See‚ e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 334
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
Name and year of the case: Parent v. Trenton School Department‚ 1999 Issues: In this scenario a student maintained residence in the town of Trenton‚ a community that does not have a high school. Students from this area are able to enrolled in Ellsworth or MDI high schools‚ however‚ due to behavioral issues the student was placed in a more restrictive environment in Bangor (Parent v. Trenton‚ 1999‚ p.2). During the spring of the 1998-1999 academic year the student returned home without “notifying
Premium Education High school Teacher
Summary R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada‚ a verdict which declared abortion laws in the Criminal Code of Canada as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court ruled the laws to have violated the woman’s right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. After the ruling‚ you could not be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for having an abortion without consent of the therapeutic abortion committee
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury
Abstract In the case of White v. Gibbs‚ the plaintiff‚ Mrs. Debbie White‚ sued O’Malley’s Tavern alongside Patrick Gibbs. Gibbs served as bartender at the tavern during the night in question. Mrs. White seeks settlement under the state of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act. Under the Dram Shop Act‚ a bartender assumes liability to any persons injured who were served alcohol while exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication (Todd‚ 1986). Since the two parties reside in different states‚ the case was brought to the
Premium Civil procedure Plaintiff United States
enforcement is not hidden anymore‚ the general public can see the police officers performing their jobs. However‚ those officers quick to use gun or Taser lack the skills in de-escalation when dealing with a minor hostile situation. Nevertheless‚ the case of Bryan v. McPherson was related to a situation of officer Brian McPherson and motorist Carl Bryan‚ which Mr. Bryan was pulled over and issued a citation early that same day and headed to southern California from Camarillo to Coronado. I have over
Premium Police Constable Police officer
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. 1 Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company Michelle White Professor Laura Hansen-Brown August 23‚ 2012 ZIPPITTELLI V. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2 Summary This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer‚ J.C. Penney Company. Zippittelli testified that she was one of four women who applied for a position within the company and she was overlooked for the job due to her age. All four women had the same job title and
Premium Rite Aid J. C. Penney Discrimination