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
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT BETWEEN: BILLY Appellant -and- R Respondent __________________________________________ APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT __________________________________________
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
Nick Crusco 10/09/2013 Mr. Cooper Criminal Justice Powell v Alabama A group of African-American youths were on a freight train through Alabama. They got into a fight with some white youths‚ throwing the white boys from the train. A message was sent‚ requesting all blacks be removed from the train. Two white girls on the train testified that they had been raped by six different youths in turn. The youths were taken into custody. The community was very hostile‚ as a mob met the youths. The trial
Premium Law Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Court
The rule in Ryland’s v Fletcher was established in the case Rylands v Fletcher [1868]‚ decided by Blackburn J. In effect‚ it is a tort of strict liability “imposed upon a landowner who collects certain things on his land – a duty insurance against harm caused by their escape regardless of the owner’s fault”. The tort under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is described as one of strict liability. This means that liability may be imposed on a party without finding of fault such as negligence. The plaintiff
Premium Tort Tort Complaint