Which school of jurisprudence is based on the philosophy that what matters is not what is written as law, but who enforces the law and by what process? a.|Legal positivism.| b.|Natural law.| c.|Legal realism.| d.|Sovereign selection.| 12. Which of the following would be an example of a civil lawsuit? a.|George is being prosecuted for bank fraud.| b.|The government has initiated an action against Jeff for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.| c.|Gretta hit Rita in a bar during happy hour. Rita is now suing for her injuries.| d.|The district attorney is bringing Ali to court for violating the city's keg ordinance.| B.
Scenario #1 Miss Dee Meanor was arrested on June 30, 2011 in Brook Park, Ohio. Officers arrived on the scene of “Nak’s Fine Eatery and Drinkery” to find Miss Meanor engaged in an altercation with a fellow patron. According to the Brook Park Municipal Ordinance, assault is classified as a 1st degree misdemeanor. For scenario #1 respond to the following questions: After spending the night as a guest of the City of Brook Park, Miss Meanor will be taken to Court. 1.
During trial, he testified he knew the victim previously, had sex with her prior to that night and on that night. He claimed the wound was from a sudden stop in the car which forced the ice pick the victim was holding (to threaten defendant against ending their relationship) into her chest. During trial evidence of a previous incident was entered as evidence of identity, intent, and planning (as ordered to the jury by the judge). Sixteen year old Judy Baker and Officer Kirk testified that six weeks prior, on the night of November 5, 1957, Williams was apprehended by police running from Miss Baker’s car (parked at Webb City) after she found him in the back seat and screamed. Williams told the officers that he had climbed into the car, a black Plymouth, believing it was his brother’s, to take a nap.
Story 2 Las Vegas, NV— Officer involved in grocery store shooting is put on leave Officer Frank Fromanski has been going through questioning from Internal affairs this week, about his connection in last Monday’s grocery story robbery. Fromanski’s gun shot and killed Julia Reed, a cocktail waitress. Crime scene investigators couldn’t find any other gunman like the officer said there was. The officer claims he shot at a third gunman and not Reed. Investigators also stated that Fromanski actually shot more than four times at the suspected third gunmen.
Introduction Kirchner v. Shooters on the Water is a case that involves the death of an intoxicated minor who attended a party and a bar the same evening he passed away. Paul Kirchner the father of the decedent brings a suite claiming the wrongful death of his son can be directly linked to the parties who facilitated his consumption of alcohol. Throughout this case the reader will be given the opportunity to examine various statutes that help determine liability in the state of Ohio. Since this is a case that is being appealed by the administrator (Paul Kirchner) it is necessary to understand that the defendants presented enough evidence to receive a summary judgment by the trial court in the initial trial. Facts This particular case is one that revolves around the concept of wrongful death and liability.
The officers then processed the capsules and found them to be morphine. Upon their findings the officers submitted the capsules as evidence in Rochin's case, where he was found guilty of violating Claifornia's Health and Safety Code of having an unlawful posession of morphine. Now the issue arises can law enforcement forcibly extract evidence from one's body? Rochin was found guilty, and later appealed his case stating that his rights were protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutuion. He argued that forced stomach pumping was self incrimination and that the evidence should have been inadmissable in
Disappointed, the Tinker’s appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to hear this case because they have made attempts in the past to define the freedom of speech limitations. They wanted to hear the constitutionality of Des Moines’ anti-armband
Ms. Darcy v. Big Car Company Martha Leon Laws 310 DeVry University I agree with the Judge's decision being that Ms. Darcy's Attorney Ms. Daggett has made all the arguments based on the sexual harassment law. She has stated what went on inside the Big Car Company and what kind of treatment her client was subjected to. Now he didn't decide the case he is only deciding that the plaintiff has enough facts to go in front of a jury and let them decided the for one there was sexual harassment, second that Big Car Company maintained a hostile workplace and third of all that Clarance had the authority of a supervisor within the company. (A.) On June 24, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Tittle VII, a supervisor is defined as someone who can undertake or effectively recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the victim, in other words, someone who can make a significant change in employment status, such as hiring,
In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Black, ruling that Blakely applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme. After a jury trial, Cunningham was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child in Contra Costa County Superior Court, California. Under California's Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL), the authorized sentences for this crime are either 6, 12, or 16 years. Under the DSL, the judge must conclude first, that there are aggravating facts, and second, that the aggravating facts outweigh any mitigating factors, before imposing the high term. In this case, at a post-trial hearing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Cunningham's victim was particularly vulnerable and that his conduct was violent, making him a danger to the community.
His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional. Since Wynehamer had legally purchased his liquors before the enactment of the statute, he was being denied his right to dispose of his property as he saw fit. The court disagreed and found the Wynehamer guilty. Wynehamer appealed the judgment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was then sent to be reviewed by the court of