Final Exam Case Brief Padilla v. Kentucky The question here is whether or not the petitioner‚ Jose Padilla‚ will be deported on account that he had plead guilty to a crime but allegedly had his sixth amendment right violated. There are multiply issues here. The first issue here is Padilla plead guilty to a drug offense that took place in the United States. The second issue is he claims his counsel did not inform him about the consequences of his plea bargain and he was misinformed about the possibility
Premium Crime Law Supreme Court of the United States
In Arizona‚ Arizona Revised Statute section 25-327(B) states: "Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree‚ the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated on the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance." In the case of Kathy I. Palmer‚ Petitioner/Appellee‚ v. Sydney N. Palmer‚ Respondent/Appellant‚ Sydney (husband) referenced the above statute when filing for termination of spousal maintenance. The court had to consider whether
Premium United States Marriage Employment
employer must have ‘strong basis in evidence‚’ that will be subject to ‘disparate impact liability’ if it fails to take discriminatory action.” Similar to City of Richmond v. Croson‚ the court declared there was not sufficient evidence to require special actions to be taken to fight
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Reverse discrimination United States Constitution
non-client in order for that auditing firm to be liable for any damages done unto the third party. In the Ultramares v. Touche case‚ the judges found that a liability arose out of a duty that Touche‚ the accounting firm‚ owed to the non-client‚ Ultramares. Touche certified that their client‚ for whom they were performing the audit‚ was solvent when in fact it was not. In the case‚ it is pointed out that Touche knew their client was borrowing at large sums and required “certified balance sheets for
Premium Tort Accountant Audit
of the Motor Vehicle to the Seller A distinction between voluntary delivery and involuntary delivery of the motor vehicle is essential to further clarify the context of unlawful deprivation in this thesis. The case of Aznar v. Yapdiangco[ G.R. No. L-18536‚ March 31‚ 1965] elucidates a case wherein the delivery of the movable property is involuntary‚ and is therefore considered as stolen
Premium Common law Common law Property
CLAW1001: Commercial Transactions A Case Analysis Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44 Submitted by: Sindhuja Shankar SID: 305 127 950 3/10/2007 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Case Summary 3 Facts 3 Issues 3 Ratio 3 Decision 4 Critical Analysis 4 Commercial Implications 5 Legal Implications 6 Conclusion 6 Bibliography 7 Appendix † Research Plan 8 Introduction The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously
Premium Law Agency Employment
of 5 feet 2 inches. (Dothard v. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977) Rawlinson’s perused her arguments that weight wasn’t an issue to perform the necessary job duties of a corrections officer because of her weight. Rawlinson’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. Rawlinson’s continue with a civil complaint filed by Southern Poverty Law Center and district complaint that’s known as a Supreme Court Case Dothard V. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977)
Premium Rape Gender Sexual intercourse
Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Texas v. Johnson has been a controversial one‚ as it involves the burning of our national symbol‚ the American flag. It leads to the question: Does the desecration of the American flag a way of expressing speech that is protected by the first amendment? Shouldn’t the destruction of a true American symbol be protected and preserved‚ as it is a symbol that represents our country? There is a great amount of criticism that Texas v. Johnson has been faced with; most
Premium United States United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
McWilliams V Dunn Supreme Court of the United States Introduction The Dunn v. McWilliams case is a famous court case that was heard before the supreme court of United States in April 24‚ 2017. The case involved James McWilliams as the petitioner against Jefferson Dunn was the commissioner and was representing the Alabama department of corrections. The focus of the case was the sixth amendment of the US constitution was useful in providing for the right to the assistance of an attorney to represent
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
University of Phoenix Material Appendix B Groupthink Case Study Tom‚ Susie‚ Richard‚ Mark‚ and Betty are all part of an academic learning team at the University of Phoenix. This team is tasked with the responsibility of producing a 2‚500-word paper on the topic of groupthink for their social psychology class. Tom‚ Susie‚ and Richard have been on several teams together (in previous classes)‚ but Mark and Betty are newcomers to the group. In the first team meeting‚ Tom‚ Susie‚ and Richard
Premium Project team University of Phoenix