Legal Case Summary: Plaintiff V.

Case Brief: Maryland v. Pringle Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) Facts: In Baltimore County, a car was stopped by a police officer for speeding in the early morning hour. The car was occupied by three men identified as Donte Partlow (driver/owner), Joseph Pringle (respondent/front-seat passenger), and Otis Smith (back-seat passenger). When the officer asked Partlow for his registration, he opened the glove compartment where the officer observed a large roll of money inside the compartment, later confirmed as $763. The officer asked Partlow for consent to search the vehicle, which he consented.

P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that she was in her kitchen when MOS broke her front door and entered the apartment and pushed her against the wall. P alleges that MOS handcuffed her and Noel Tartlaon, Noel Tartlaon, Jr. and Farrow Wright (non-parties). Defendant MOS Jose Peinan states that MOS were executing a search warrant obtain after confidential informant bought drugs form Jumaane, (non-party). MOS Peinan states that Jumane was arrested in the lobby and narcotics were recovered from him.

In the movie, A Civil Action, personal injury lawyer, Jan Schlichtman and his law firm, file a law suit against Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace & Company. The prosecution’s case is based on the premise that these two leather companies contaminated the water supply, in Woburn, Massachusetts. The motion brought before the court requested that the eight plaintiffs be compensated for “negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and wrongful death. ”1 Schlichtman presented medical evidence that illustrated an unusually high incidence of cancer in the small town of Woburn.

• P alleges excessive force and false arrest for criminal possession of a controlled substance. P alleges that he was driving his friend, Luis Zapata’s minivan when MOS pulled him over. P alleges that he provided MOS with a valid Puerto Rico’s driver’s license. P alleges he was strip searched at the precinct. Narcotics were in plain view.

Per the summons and complaint, plaintiff claims assault and false arrest. Plaintiff claims that defendant PO Argelis Rodriguez and other MOS stopped him and accused him of throwing away a handgun. Plaintiff states that he did not possess a handgun. Plaintiff claims that PO Rodriguez assaulted him in the head, body, face and buttock. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in handcuffs then his pants and underpants were removed and he was searched on the ground in public

In the movie, A Civil Action, the plaintiff’s case began when a group of various parents and families believed that the health related issues and deaths in their city of Woburn was the result of contaminated water. Although the attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, was reluctant to take the case at first because they didn’t have plausible cause, he realized that 2 corporations sat at the border of the river. Mr. Schlichtmann and his firm thus took the case and file a major lawsuit which stated that the the two corporations, Grace and Beatrice, caused wrongful deaths due to the dumping of hazardous waste. The plaintiff side of this case then begins to collect scientific evidence and witness statements in order to prove that both Grace and Beatrice were

The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing

Per summons and complaint, plaintiff claims assault and false arrest. Plaintiff states that he was watching MOS arrest a woman when a friend, Tiaya Cornelius (non-party) asked plaintiff to help her carry grocery bags to her home. Plaintiff states that an inebriated unknown male attempted to grab one of the bag. Plaintiff states while he and Ms. Cornelius were informing the unknown male that they did not need his help, plaintiff was struck on both side of his head by police batons. Plaintiff claims that he was handcuffed.

Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision.

I do not believe there is a contract to convey real property between Wilbert Heikkila and David McLaughlin. McLaughlin agreed to buy three parcels of property for $145,000, $32,000 and $175,000. McLaughlin submitted his offer to Heikkila and earnest money checks. However after McLaughlin submitted the written offer to Heikkila, Heikkila changed the selling price of all three parcels, change the closing dates, and added a reservation.

The essay, The Great Lawsuit, written by Margret Fuller was created to state Fuller’s opinion about the complexed idea of men and women in the world. In her essay, Fuller gave many arguments, but the most influential point was the inequality of women. The essay argued the idea of women only seen as helpers of society. In history, men were portrayed as powerful and useful asset to society, but the women were portrayed as a man’s wife and mother. The author says men are dominant and women are weak in society’s eyes, and most of Fuller’s points are correct about the inequality of

2. Predicate Acts The De Sole and Howard Plaintiffs have alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In addition, Howard alleges false labeling of visual art, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318, as a predicate act. Hammer argues, however, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hammer committed a predicate act and, in particular, have not alleged that "Hammer used the mail or the wires for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme."

You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.