Justin Jethroe Ms. Allen Intro to Corrections April 12‚ 2013 Roper v. Simmons U. S. Supreme Court March 1‚ 2005 543 U.S. 551 Statement of Facts This case in Fenton‚ Missouri involves 17 yrs. old Christopher Simmons born in 1993. Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer were Christopher Simmons friends and accomplices. Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital murder along with Charles Benjamin. The plan was to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering‚ tying up Shirley
Premium Capital punishment Roper v. Simmons Crime
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Farmers everywhere in the United States during the late nineteenth century had valid reasons to complaint against the economy because the farmers were constantly being taken advantage of by the railroad companies and banks. All farmers faced similar problems and for one thing‚ farmers were starting to become a minority within the American society. In the late nineteenth century‚ industrialization was in the spotlight creating big businesses and capitals. The success of industrialization put agriculture
Free Money Currency Money supply
The 11th Hour talks about the state of our natural environment. In addition‚ this film provides the viewers a look at the state of the global environment including visionary and practical solutions for restoring the planets ecosystem. With contributions from scientists‚ politicians‚ environmental specialists‚ and other more experts knowledgeable about the current state of our environment‚ the film documents and presents grave problems we are facing nowadays including global warming‚ deforestation
Premium Global warming Sustainability Ecology
Atkins v. Peak‚ 514 N.E. 2d 850 (1987) Decision by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Facts: On March 20‚ 1982‚ plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sustained serious injuries while skiing at Jimmy Peak Ski Resort. On December 5‚ 1984 plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sued defendant Jimmy Peak. Plaintiff alleged that her injuries were caused by defective ski equipment she had rented from the rental facility on the premises. She further alleged that the defendant failed to inspect ski equipment and the failure
Premium Complaint Pleading Injury
Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself” is the product that sports offers to customers. * Restraints on competition
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm. Holdings: the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff of $2800. Rationale: the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone. The case was a case of torts and it related to the assult and battery which the defendant should pay money for the plaintiff. The defendant has no proof of any other hurt‚ and the medical testimony seems to have been agreed that this touch or kick was
Premium Contract
bonuses. The appellant admits that the threshold for reviewing a jury’s award is set very high‚ requiring that the verdict is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages. Relying on the cases of Howes v. Crosby [1984] O.J. No.3127 (C.A.) and Snushall v. Fulsang [2005] O.J. No. 4069(C.A.)‚ the appellants defined “inordinate “as too high or too low by 50%. Legal issue: Was the jury’s award for damages of $40‚000 patently excessive and out of proportion
Premium Jury Law Tort
Allen v. Dalk CITATION: Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-2 (2002) PARTIES: Allen (Niece) v. Dalk (Half-sister) FACTS: Ms. Dalk‚ disputed the validity of a will claimed to be that of her half-sister‚ the decedent‚ McPeak. Decedent signed four originals of a living will‚ three originals of durable power of attorney‚ but failed to sign her will. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: The lower courts determined that the will was invalid. ISSUE: Whether the will of the decedent McPeak was properly executed
Premium Law Common law Sign