b) No, because the board of directors did not authorize the president and CEO or the other employees to violate federal law. c) No, because a corporation is not liable for most crimes committed by its agents. d) Yes, because a corporation is always liable for the crimes committed by its agents. 4. For which of the following would a shareholder derivative action be appropriate?
b) No, because the board of directors did not authorize the president and CEO or the other employees to violate federal law. c) No, because a corporation is not liable for most crimes committed by its agents. d) Yes, because a corporation is always liable for the crimes committed by its agents. 4. For which of the following would a shareholder derivative action be appropriate?
b) No, because the board of directors did not authorize the president and CEO or the other employees to violate federal law. c) No, because a corporation is not liable for most crimes committed by its agents. d) Yes, because a corporation is always liable for the crimes committed by its agents. 4. For which of the following would a shareholder derivative action be appropriate?
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Rule: Yes, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures, and follows a person, not a place. Analysis: In a public place, a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy for things that they expose to the public, even in his own home, or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment Protection. Conclusion: The evidence obtained and contained on the tapes is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
b) No, because the board of directors did not authorize the president and CEO or the other employees to violate federal law. c) No, because a corporation is not liable for most crimes committed by its agents. d) Yes, because a corporation is always liable for the crimes committed by its agents. 4. For which of the following would a shareholder derivative action be appropriate?
In this case, I believe the government took it too far because there was no warrant allowing officers to scan DLK’s home, there was no danger of losing evidence, and DLK’s fourth amendment rights were violated. First of all, using the thermal scanner in this case is considered a legal search and the officers that used it were not given a warrant. On a warrant, there are three major parts; who is being searched, where they are searching, and what is being searched for. Since officers knew who and what exactly they were searching for at DLK’s home, a warrant should have been provided. Obviously, heat radiation cannot be seen without some type of tool.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (U.S. Constitution) And when the Texas Constitution was written they included a section that refers to Eminent Domain, and due compensation. The Texas constitution reads, “No person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money” (TX Constitution). At first consideration, it sounds as if it would be a sound economic decision to use eminent domain when necessary to take a big block of an old run down unattractive area and replace it with newer, larger and revenue producing building’s and business or perhaps wider or
The Supreme Court has squarely held that the Fifth Amendment provides no rights to non-citizens who have no established connection to the country and who are held outside sovereign United States territory. See Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S; at 269 ("[W]e have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights . outside the sovereign territory of the United States."). See also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) ("It is well established that certain constitutional protections[, such as the Fifth Amendment,] available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our
The court mentioned that there is no legal precedent saying the ideal to petition gives unions a constitutional proper to collective bargaining. Likewise, Judge Joel Flaum wrote in the opinion unions do not have a free association suitable to engage in negotiation. “The union cannot willed the First Amendment to force Wisconsin to engage in a dialogue or continue the states policies” Flaum wrote Oklahoma gay marriage case goes before United States Appeal Court.
Such researches were never published. Under any conception of legal necessity, the defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a determination of values. Here, the act reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits of an exception. This conclusion is supported by the structure of the Act, which classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 substance – a drug that has no currently accepted medical