Case Citation: Counihan V. Bishop

In Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624 (1985); Guardianship of Anthony, 402 Mass. 723 (1988), “The Court cannot exercise the function of the executive branch of the government by ordering the agency to fulfill certain obligations in a specific manner”. However, if an agency has failed to act in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory imperatives, the court may find that said agency has abused its discretion, as measured by the arbitrary or capricious test. Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602, 614 (1985). The most important and apparent DCF’s abuses of discretion in this case is by removing the child away from her best comfort place, where she has been nursed by her natural mother. DCF possessed the legal custody of the child in this case, and decided to entrust the child to be housed at the prison facility, where the child’s mother is also housed. DCF considered that, according to its rules, regulation and professional practices, it was its best decision, best placement and best interest of the child.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court which ruled that the Appellants Constitutional rights were violated. Officials from both Burlington and Essex County Appealed

Sally Bright (Petitioner), filed for divorce and custody of 14 year old daughter, Chastity. John Bright (Respondent) also requested custody. The court ordered temporary custody of the minor child to Petitioner and visitation with Respondent every weekend. Petitioner will be moving to another part of the country to take a job.

A Brief History of the Case: In Re the Marriage of Richard S. Dougall, Petitioner/Appellant, and Myrna R. Dougall, Respondent/Appellee

Facts: Katz was caught transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states because the federal agents put an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth. Based on eavesdropping, Katz was then convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings violated his fourth amendment right to which the Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the

Ss 53-32 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.) threatens to fine or imprison any individual that uses contraceptives as way to

The Morse v. Frederick landmark Supreme Court case paved the way for the manner in which authority intervention can occur within the public school setting. As the case made its way from district court, to appellate court, to the final Supreme Court destination, it saw many opinions, differing verdicts, and arguments. Through this process, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morse, which mirrored my opinions and understanding of the case.

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

The supreme court sees generally to be ignored on the vast majority of its cases that it holds. Some cases hold a particular interest from the public because of publicity due to the topics they address but it is no secret that the vast majority of these cases are ignored by people in their everyday life. It can be seen with some examples from cases like Brown v. Buhman, Spokeo v. Robbins, Fisher v. University of Texas that the decision made in these cases can have an impact on the lives of all or many citizens that generally ignore their outcomes holding no regard for the standings of the supreme court.

The case began when the mother of baby Veronica who lived Oklahoma and was engaged briefly to Mr. Brown but, broke up while she

The reason I chose the case that I did is multi-fold. One, I have been dealing with the State of Michigan courts as recently as today concerning family law since my divorce in 2002. Michigan is a state that gives very little deference to a child’s wish of who they want to live with (regardless of age or maturity) regardless of how equal the living arrangements are (e.g. healthy environment, good schools etc.). In fact it was only relatively recently that Michigan finally changed its laws and assumed a 50/50 split in custody so long as it is in the best interest of the child.

I disagree with the visitation order Monique, the birth mother of the two minor children has caused to have filed with the courts. There are various reasons for my objection which are listed herewith:

When you and your spouse are planning to divorce in Salem, Massachusetts, understanding child custody options can be confusing. Because circumstances surrounding a divorce and custody are unique to your situation, the judge will consider several types of arrangements before determining the one that best suits your child. One of the factors that affects this decision is how well you and your child’s other parent work together. When you are able to come to an agreement before going to court, the outcome may be more beneficial for both of you.

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a