Mark Coller V. New York Case Brief

I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.

In the case of the State v. Stu Dents, the jury found the defendant guilty of the following charges: homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, and crimes related to drugs. They felt that there was no sufficient evidence to charge him with the crime of burglary. It has come down to the sentencing stage of this case. We will hear from both the prosecuting and defending attorneys before the court makes their final ruling on the sentence of one, Mr. Stu Dents.

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

Paul,Lexi and Brandi took a plane all the way to New England to research a notorious asylum in Newton,connecticut Fairfield Hills Hospital which housed more than 4,000 patients. When they got there they were amazed by how huge it was it was hundreds of acres. Brandi said “let’s get this over with” Paul and Lexi both agreed so they headed in and the first thing they saw was a dusty and broken down table and as soon as they took a step the door closed but it was not locked so they didn’t think nothing of it so they headed upstairs and down the hall and they saw a lot of rooms with mattress like padding on the wall. They settled in because they would be staying there for a while and they went downstairs because they were going to research everything downstairs when Paul heard a loud thud and Paul said “did anybody hear that and

Imagine a sunny day at the West Side Park. Children playing hopscotch and wishing on coins being flipped into the fountain. Now, at that same fountain, imagine an innocent teen being stabbed to death and three liters of blood staining the steps. One summer night, Ponyboy Curtis and Johnny Cade walked to the West Side Park. Bob Sheldon and his friends drove up to the boys while intoxicated. Bob’s friends friends and Johnny’s have had previous disagreements. After fighting, Bob attempted to dump Ponyboy in the fountain when Johnny stabbed him and killed him. Johnny Cade is guilty of Bob Sheldon’s murder because he knew he was guilty and confessed, he wanted to kill him, and he could have attacked Bob in some other way that would not have proven fatal.

On October 16, we had an interview with Verda Colvin, who is a Superior Court Judge in the Macon Judicial Circuit which serves Macon Bibb, Crawford and Peach Counties. She was appointed by Governor Nathan Deal on April 16, 2014. She is the first African American female appointed to the Macon Judicial Circuit.

The Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s private home apartment in the response to a report of a weapons disturbance call. They entered the private home. The officer’s stubble upon Lawrence and Garner involved in a sexual act. Both men were arrested, held overnight and charged. Garner and Lawrence were then charged with Texas law of sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. Lawrence and Garner challenged the conviction as a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection clause. The court referred to the Bowers v. Hardwick case 478 U.S 186 in 1986. The Court of Appeals considered the defendants federal and constitutional arguments under both the equal protection and the Fourteenth Amendments, Due Process Clauses. After the hearing the court overruled the constitutional arguments and declared the convictions.

In the US Supreme Court case Roper V. Simmons, the decision that was to be made is whether or not the execution of a minor convicted of a crime representing cruel or unusual punishment as well as unconstitutional. Christopher Simmons was a junior in highschool, he talked among his friends discussing how it would be easy to get away with murder to the fact of their age. Mr. Simmons explained to his friends that he wanted to “kill someone by breaking into and entering the person’s home, robbing the person, tying the person up, and then throwing the person off a bridge”(Scott). In the early morning of September 9, 1993 Simmons and his friend went to Ms. Cook’s home and did exactly as planned by Christopher, the suspect knew the victim from a car

On September 16, 2016, Terence Crutcher was shot and killed by a Tulsa, Oklahoma police officer, Betty Shelby. Crutcher, 40 years old, was discovered by Betty Shelby as she was in route to a domestic violence call. Former Officer Shelby, according to her attorney, thought Crutcher was possibly impaired when she encountered Crutcher’s SUV in the middle of the roadway. Prior to Shelby discovering the vehicle, the Tulsa Police Department received two 911 calls reporting Crutcher’s vehicle. The first caller advised the dispatcher an abandoned vehicle was blocking the street, and a man was running from the vehicle yelling, “it was going to blow up.” The second caller stated the SUV was, “in the middle of the road, and all of the doors were open,”

Whether the Fourth Amendment protects telephone conversations, which were done in a phone booth and secretly recorded, from introduce it as evidence against a person? It is important because many people use their phones in lots of places, and the privacy in American culture is something very important.

Facts: Shepard, defendant, was charged and convicted of the murdering his wife. Prosecution introduced statement Shepard’s wife made to the nurse as evidences during the trial. Shepard’s wife told her nurse stating that her husband had poisoned her. She also asked the nurse to find the whiskey bottle from defendant’s closet and perform the poison test which she had drunk from. The prosecution introduced the wife’s conversation based on the state of mind exception and dying declaration exception under the hearsay rule. Shepard appeared.

Mrs. Queenie Simpson and her husband, Arthur where at home. They suddenly got into a fight and she got really upset and tore out of the house to go to a country club to go party. She left the country club at about 1:00 am and her friends left 10 minutes after her to come over to have one last drink. When she got home her husband was dead on the floor and it looked like he fell down the stairs.

The next day the sisters meet with another victim's wife. "So, what do you remember Mrs. Watson?" Ana asks. "Um…I was asleep. I heard a thump, next thing I know Allen was being dragged out of bed. I couldn't see anything, it was too dark. Before I could do anything he hit me, knocking me out. Then this morning my son tells me he saw Santa drag daddy up the chimney." Mrs. Watson says through her stifled tears. "I'm sorry, I know this is hard," Liz said trying to comfort the victim's wife. "Mrs. Watson, Where did you get that wreath above your fireplace?" Ana says with a slight smile. Everyone turns to look at the wreath and then back at Ana. "Excuse me?" Mrs. Watson asks getting frustrated with the agents. After being kicked out, Liz questioned

In order for detriment to have occurred, the relying party must suffer detriment if the assumption made by it is not fulfilled. As the assumption made between the two parties was indeed unsatisfied due to Mark’s change of mind, Sandy was thus left at a substantial loss. A clear link is formed between the detriment suffered and the assumption and expectation as provided in the case of Thompson v Palmer (1933) whereby was stated that the relying party must suffer detriment in the sense that ‘as a result of adopting (the assumption or expectation) as the basis of action or inaction, (the relying party) will have placed himself in a position of material disadvantage if departure from the assumption is permitted.’ Therefore the relying party is found to be worse off and rather the act of going back on the promise would ‘result in some detriment and therefore some injustice. ’ The detriment suffered must be material, significant or substantial and in this case, it fulfills all three criteria as Sandy loses the material gain of the cottage and the substantial improvements made which can also be considered a substantial and significant loss monetary wise, and significant in the sense that she is unable to seek a property settlement with her ex-husband Pat any

Seven months prior to his eighteenth birthday, the respondent, Christopher Simmons, planned to break into the house of Shirley Crooks. Simmons accurately planned the murder and he knew what he wanted to do and he did it. While planning the crime with his older colleague, he specifically mentioned “we would get away with it.” On the day of the crime, Simmons entered Mrs. Crooks’ home and the noises caused Mrs. Crooks to awake. When Simmons glanced at Mrs. Crooks, he recognized her from a prior car accident. With the fear of getting into trouble and facing criminal charges, Simmons and his colleague decided