Eyewitness Identification In the Supreme Court case of Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette‚ Petitioners‚ versus the state of California (argued January 21‚ 2014‚ decided April 22‚ 2014)‚ two men argued that one of their constitutional rights had been violated. In August of 2008‚ a Mendocino County dispatcher received a call from a woman reporting that another vehicle had run her off the road (Navarette v. California‚ 2014). The dispatcher notified the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Suspect
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
The United States v. Virginia court case was debated on Jan 17‚ 1996 at Virginia Military Institute. The advocates involved were Paul Bender‚ who argued the case for the United States and Theodore B. Olson‚ who argued the case on behalf of Virginia. The U.S was the petitioner‚ while Virginia was the accused. According to "FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” the case was about Virginia Military Institute violating the fourteenth Amendments of Equal Protection by maintaining a
Premium
4th Amendment The Fourth Amendment is a very important element of the United States Constitution. This Amendment has been the solutions to several Supreme court cases‚ such as Terry v. Ohio‚ Cupp v. Murphy‚ and Florida v. Jardines. This amendment also codifies various statutes. Terry v. Ohio (1968) was a court case led by a conflict between a group of men and Officer McFadden. Officer McFadden was patrolling downtown Cleveland‚ when he noticed a group of men suspiciously wandering around. He decided
Premium
What legal issue(s) does this cases illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)? Consideration is the primary legal issue for this case. One of the basic elements of consideration is legal sufficiency. The promisor‚ Pearsall‚ had legal benefit. 4. List ALL of the elements the plaintiff must prove to win the case as stated in the court opinion or textbook. For example‚ if the case is about undue influence‚ the plaintiff must show 1. The unfair persuasive
Premium Family Legal terms New Jersey
The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 created a juvenile court that had jurisdiction over children charged with crimes. But‚ in addition‚ the new juvenile court was given jurisdiction over: Any child who for any reason is destitute or homeless or abandoned; or dependent on the public for support; or has not proper parental care or guardianship; or who habitually begs or receives alms; or who is living in any house of ill fame or with any vicious or disreputable person; or whose home by reason
Premium Crime Supreme Court of the United States Criminal justice
The Evolving Stance of Segregation In Plessy v Ferguson the court ruled that segregation was constitutional so long as the provided separate facilities were equal. For the next fifty eight years‚ states created laws that supported their own policies of segregation. Known as Jim Crow Laws‚ these laws continued to discriminate against African Americans across nation. It was not until 1954 when the case Brown v Board of Education when the court reached a decision to overturn segregation and ruled unconstitutional
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Alexis Crump Landmark Supreme Court Case: Washington V. Chrisman 11/29/9 Plaintiff: State of Washington Defendant: Chrisman Plaintiff’s Claim: The drugs that were collected in Chrisman’s dormitory room was legally obtained and could be used as evidence. Chief Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Ronald R Carpenter Chief Lawyer for the Defendant: Robert F Patrick Judges in Favor of the Court: Harry A. Blackmun‚ Sandra Day O’Connor‚ Lewis F. Powell‚ Jr.‚ William H. Rehnquist and John
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Illegal drug trade
The landmark Sheff v. O’Neill Connecticut Supreme Court decision will have a dramatic effect on the state of education in the great state of Connecticut. The de-facto segregation of Connecticut public schools over several years has been a troubling trend that has ultimately led to the decision reached by the court. The low performance of schools in the Hartford area has been a concern of many parents and educators. A child’s education is the most valuable tool a child can receive to prepare themselves
Premium Connecticut United States Racial segregation
Marbury v. Madison (1803‚ Marshall). The court established its role as the arbiter of the constitutionality of federal laws‚ the principle is known as judicial review Fletcher v. Peck (1810‚ Marshall). The decision stems from the Yazoo land cases‚ 1803‚ and upholds the sanctity of contracts. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819‚ Marshall). The Court ruled that states cannot tax the federal government‚ i.e. the Bank of the United States; the phrase "the power to tax is the power to destroy"; confirmed the
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States