Case Study: Petitioner V.

the court case Maryland, Petitioner v. James Kulbicki, James Kulbicki fatally shot his 22-year-old-mistress. Kulbicki shot his mistress on the weekend before he was scheduled for a hearing on unpaid child support, which was tied into a paternity suit between Kulbicki and his mistress. At Kulbicki’s trial, which began in 1995, evidence was presented that the bullet removed from the head of Kulbicki’s mistress matched the bullet fragment that was left in Kulbicki’s truck. FBI Agent Ernest Peele, who represented the CBLA (Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis), presented this evidence. Peele also examined a bullet taken from Kulbicki’s gun. Even though the bullet in the victim’s brain was not an “exact” match to the bullet found in the gun, Peele assumed that the bullet from the gun was similar enough to the first two bullets found. Using

Diving in the Citizen’s United Ruling case state that corporations and other independent groups have the right to raise unlimited campaign funds. This campaign fund, representing the corporation's freedom of speech, can be used for and against federal candidates. The ruling of Citizen United permitted groups to make “independent expenditures,” not affiliated with any candidate or party since they were not allowed to spend treasury funds in Federal elections (Citizens United). Corporations and unions can have a certain limited contribution to their political action committees, organizations that raise and spend money for specific candidates, that then contribute to the outcome of federal campaigns. Organizations, social welfare, and trade associations

The Alva family enrolled their son, Sergio, at Paradise Cove, a behavioral modification program for troubled youth which was operated by the Defendants. The Alvas then initiated a suit against Teen Help Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs, R & B Billing, Dixie Contract Services, Robert Lichfield, Karr Fransworth, and Brent Facer, alleging a number of tort claims which arose from the enrollment of their child. This initial suit was made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on February 25, 2000. On August 5, 2003 the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted after hearing arguments regarding the motion on December 16, 2003. The motion for summary judgment was granted and filed on December 17, 2003. The Plaintiffs then did not file their notice of appeal until January 17, 2004, which was after the deadline to file such notice. The court then required the Plaintiffs to show reason as to why the appeal should be honored even though it was late.

Respondent has realized he is gay and has met a male companion who doesn’t reside with him presently, but someday might. Chastity testified that she feels weird around Respondent’s male companion. Psychologist, Dr.

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

On June 22, 2016 at approximately 1213 hours, Eagle Pass Police Department Auto Theft Detective, Rene Cardona was interviewing a male subject identified as GONZALEZ, Benjamin (DOB: 12/28/1951). Subject was the driver of a black Chevy Equinox bearing TXLP#GXH6819. Also occupying the vehicle was a female subject identified as GONZALEZ, Sandra (DOB: 09/23/1957).

I met with Wayne and Frank on June 30 and they provided me with these extensions of the administrative leave of absence for Michael Kuchar for the period May 22 through June 19. They suspect that they are holding back on reinstating him until they employ a new Assistant to the Superintendent at Cumberland who is a retired state trooper. They pointed out that Kuchar has only been receiving his straight salary and has not received his lost overtime but after consideration we decided that the best route to take would be to file a grievance when Kuchar is reinstated rather than do it now and potential encourage the Town not to reinstate him.

The respondent is very unreasonable and combative. See EXHIBIT 4, text messages at 6:32 p.m. on 12/6/16, in a simply communication by respondent to petitioner and the children, she explains to petitioner "…you might have to get the kids…" the petitioner inquires as to "…why can't you…" pick up the kids, she begins with arguing by stating "Since your dad is making a big deal…". This is her common reaction to things. Our son Ryan replies with "No one is making a big deal" and "He was just asking a question". See EXHIBIT 5, a string of emails on 11/4/16, 11/17/16 and 11/30/16 to respondent's attorney asking for responses to requests for repsondent's Employee Plan Information, Joinder, Preliminary Declaration of Disclosures, proposed "Parenting

The majority wrote that the Freedom of the Press Clause in the 1st Amendment protects associations of individuals, not just individual speakers; therefore, corporations gain 1st amendment rights as an association of individuals (Roberts, 2009). This means that corporations have effectively the same 1st amendment rights guaranteed to individuals. In Buckley v. Valeo, it’s established that money is detrimental to disseminating speech. For that reason, limiting a corporation’s ability to spend money is deemed unconstitutional because it limits their ability to speak on political issues., The majority opinion also wrote that because the BCRA doesn’t distinguish between corporations and media,

According to Mr. Sundstrom, Petitioner touted his first-class education to insure FMRS employees granted his request. As a result, Mr. Sundstrom granted Petitioner’s request, ignoring many inconsistencies in the application. To quote the late psychiatrist, Dr. Gordon Livingston, If the map doesn’t agree with the ground, the map is wrong. Defying common sense, Mr. Sundstrom chose to believe the map wrong, Mr. Sundstrom chose to forego asking the right questions and Mr. Sundstrom ignored my goddaughter’s information regarding the application’s motive.

This case was last before the court on 1/4/2017 for a report to the court. The hearing was rescheduled until 2/6/2017, as all the attorneys were not present. At that time, temporary custody of Issac Johnson remained with the Department. The case was continued until 2/6/2017 for a status report.

The District Court’s denial of Petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss is reviewed de novo, and may be affirmed on any ground that is supported by the record. Am. Int'l Enterprises, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1993). Under a de novo standard of review, the appellate court reviews a decision on a question of law anew, and need not give deference to the legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous court to hear the case. Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Ashland, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 852, 868 (Tex. App. 2001). An appeals court may refer to the trial court’s record to determine the facts, but may rule on the evidence and matters of law without deference to that court’s finding. Id. District court rulings on a motion to dismiss under Federal

The father reported that they have been litigating for two years. He tried to negotiate for two years. He told her she can win, do what is best for Hudson. The father stated that the child should have both parents in his life. She wanted him to have no time with the child. He indicated that the parents was with Lannie Resnick. He indicated that they worked with Ms. Resnick from June to July of 2014. He believed they made no progress. He believes Ms. Resnick did not want a structured program of access. The father stated that Ms. Resnick stated that he could see the child over the summer however, there would be no overnights. He indicated that Ms. Resnick wanted the overnights to be based on how the child was doing. The father stated that he did not agree with no overnights. He wanted to have overnights with an

Ms. Leavitt stated the reason for the evaluation is due to the divorce proceedings between the parents, where they were not able to come to an agreement regarding the custody of the children. She reported that the parents tried to mediate twice and was unsuccessful. She indicated that the parents did not discuss custody until the court appearance and Mr. Wilner indicated that he wanted full custody.

This week we are examining the Supreme Court. While doing a little research I came across a case in which the Supreme Court had decided to reverse the ruling. In the case, Petitioner Jae Lee was arrested on drug possession charges with the intent to sell. In the case, Mr. Lee admitted the drugs were his and at the advice of his counsel took a plea bargain. Lee was sentenced to a year and a day in prison under an aggravated felony charge. To add a little bit more to this, Mr. Lee was only 13 when he came over with his parent from South Korea. In the 35 years, Lee spent in the United States he never became a citizen. With this in mind when he was arrested for the aggravated felony charge it is mandatory for him to be deported. The problem with