Case Name, Citation, and Court Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C. 122 Ohio St.3d.546, 2009-Ohio-3554 Ohio Supreme Court 2. Key Facts A. Williams purchased a vehicle from Spitzer with a purchase agreement stating a $15,500 trade-in allowance. B. Williams claims a verbal promise of $16,500 trade-in value was not integrated into the purchase agreement. C. Spitzer denies verbal claim of $16,500 trade-in value.
The taxes and registration are required for purchase, just as though you must register your car and obtain insurance. Neither is an abridgement of any civil right. Gottlieb asserts that if we are limited the ability to posses and own weapons of mass destruction, then our rights are being restricted. The construction and completion of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights was before the development of weapons of mass destruction. Those that authored our Second Amendment could not have foreseen the production of Rocket Launchers and Atomic Bombs.
Shannon Scofield Professor Laurence Mraz Kaplan University PA165: Introduction to torts Unit 6: Memorandum Oct 08, 2012 To: SR. Partner From: Sr. Paralegal Re: John Stockely October 08, 2012 Case: John Stockely v. AAA Auto Dealers Issue: Whether AAA Auto Dealers is vicariously liable for John’s negligence. Facts: John Stockely worked as a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. He was given a company car to drive to a manufacturing facility, which is 150 miles from the dealership, to check on new orders. John Stockely was also reimbursed for gas, food and lodging.
2010); petition for rehearing en bane denied, United States of America v. Antoine Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Yes Police would do that and they have done that many times. By installing a GPS tracking device without a warrant, they are invading the privacy of the person. Secretly placing a GPS on a car or monitoring a mans movement for long periods of time constitutes a government “search”, and therefore the mans constitutional rights were violated.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only. Lanzinger, J., concurs in syllabus paragraph 2 and judgment only. Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-3554.pdf Please note:Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes
An owner of a condominium has the right to: (Points : 2) Landscape common grounds Remodel the condominium Paint the common hallways Refuse to pay for condominium maintenance 5. Legal actions in which a mortgagee terminates a mortgagor's interest in mortgaged premises is: (Points : 2) Right of survivorship Foreclosure Eminent domain Licensing agreement 6. The Fair Housing Act is a U.S. law that regulates: (Points : 2) Grantors Mortgage companies kucourses.com/re/DotNextLaunch.asp?courseid=7026057&userid=12544991&sessionid=a44b980478… 1/2 9/25/12 PA106: Legal Terminology and Transcription Condominiums All of the above 7. The most complete estate in land is called: (Points : 2) Life estate Joint tenancy with right of survivorship Quitclaim deed Fee simple 8. A landlord of leased property may be sued by the tenants under the principles of: (Points : 2) Reversion Warranty deed Warranty of habitability Possibility of remainder 9.
In 1984, a court case, United States v. Pined-Moreno, ruled that “law enforcement's installation of a GPS device on a suspect's Jeep while it was parked both on public streets and in his driveway did not violate the Fourth Amendment. (Fakhoury, Hanna).” In my opinion, a driveway is in fact a part of the house and thus the government should not be able to put tracking devices in cars that are in a driveway because it violates the Fourth Amendment. According to www.brickhousesecurity.com, it is illegal to use GPS surveillance if “you need to break into the vehicle to situate the device, physically hard-wire the device inside the vehicle, or the vehicle is in a place where its owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy (GPS Tracking Laws Explained).” In recent years, the Supreme Court has expanded the 4th Amendments power to include property around the house as well. United States v. Jones ended with a decision that “warrantless installation of GPS devices violates the Fourth Amendment ( Fakhoury, Hanna).” Now, lower courts are reviewing other court cases that have to do with GPS surveillance. This is only the beginning of improvements that are going to be made to ensure that our right to privacy is
This principle holds that the law represents the minimal moral standards of society so you should never take any action that violates the law (Williams, p. 67). As a response to the increase in accidents and deaths reported from texting while driving President Obama has placed a ban on federal employee use of cell phones while they are behind the wheel. There has also been bans put in place in 18 states (Halsey III, The Washington Post). Our company will consider the president’s judgment as our own. If the president believes that texting while driving is a violation of the law, then according to the principle of government requirements we believe in this policy as
-Miranda is only required when both custody and interrogation are present. John was in custody, but the police had not yet began to interrogate him so they were not obligated to stop John from speaking. His words were voluntary, and therefore his incriminating statements were admissible in court (Stuckey, Roberson & Wallace, 2006, pg. 103). There are no rights in the Constitution that protect us from incriminating ourselves by giving voluntary statements prior to the beginning of a custodial interrogation.
They were unable to get answers from Parks' attorney, Gregory Reed, and personal assistant, Elaine Steele, who together had formed The Parks Legacy, a corporation that controlled the public property rights to Parks' image. According to court records, the "selling" of Parks included fees for autographs and pictures of the civil rights legend, her appearance in a rock video, and her image on a phone-calling card. An article in the Detroit News noted, "Civil rights leaders and marketing experts fear the products cheapen Parks' image and legacy as the mother of the civil rights movement." In April 1999 Parks filed a lawsuit against the rap duo OutKast for using her name without her consent, asking for $25,000 in damages and removal of her name from all OutKast products. The song titled "Rosa Parks" appears on the act's third album.