Brief of McCart v H&R Block‚ Inc. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court Robert McCart and June McCart‚ v. H &R Block. Inc. 470 N.E.2d 756; 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 3039 Court of Appeals of Indiana‚ Third District Key Facts Mr. McCart opened a tax preparation business and executed a contract with Block to be a district manager‚ which precluded him from operating a tax business in the same city. McCart then issued the city franchise to his wife. Years later‚ the wife signed a new franchise agreement
Premium Income tax in the United States Contract Taxation in the United States
1. Citation: United States v. Conti‚ E.D.S.C.‚ Western Division‚ No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts: In 2011‚ the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289‚ which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs‚ headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina‚ and the Defendants‚ Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson‚ who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation
Premium United States North Carolina South Carolina
Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous‚ successful‚ and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Premium Contract Contract
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
Final Exam Case Brief Padilla v. Kentucky The question here is whether or not the petitioner‚ Jose Padilla‚ will be deported on account that he had plead guilty to a crime but allegedly had his sixth amendment right violated. There are multiply issues here. The first issue here is Padilla plead guilty to a drug offense that took place in the United States. The second issue is he claims his counsel did not inform him about the consequences of his plea bargain and he was misinformed about the possibility
Premium Crime Law Supreme Court of the United States
Schmerber v. California Case Brief Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966) FACTS: Armando Schmerber‚ the petitioner‚ had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment‚ a police officer smelled liquor on petitioner’s breath and noticed other symptoms of drunkenness so the officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal United States
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
GONZALES V. RAICH‚ 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222 Facts: Respondents contended that California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 exempted physicians‚ patients and care givers from criminal prosecution and allowed for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes with the recommendation and approval of a physician. Respondents who suffered from medical conditions sought to avail themselves of this exemption. Because the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) enacted under the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States Congress