Citation Eisner v. Macomber‚3 AFTR 3020‚ 252 US 189‚1 USTC ¶32 (US‚ 1920) Issue (1) Under the 16th Amendment‚ does Congress have the power to tax stock dividends received by the Macomber? (2) Are stock dividends considered income? Facts Mrs. Macomber owned 2‚200 shares of Standard Oil Company. In January 1916‚ Standard Oil Company declared a 50% stock dividend. Mrs. Macomber received an additional 1‚100 shares of stock with a $19‚877 par value. The shares represented a surplus for Standard
Premium Stock market Stock Supreme Court of the United States
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes‚ Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the "necessary and proper" clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word "expressly" particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution‚ because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress
NASH v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY FACTS: Two Students of Auburn University David Nash and Donna Perry were accused of cheating on their anatomy exams‚ which was a violation of the Student Code of Professional Ethics at Auburn. At a university hearing which was to determine the merits of their charge‚ faculty and student witnesses testified they observed Nash and Perry cheating in various way and at multiple times during their exams. At the conclusion of the hearing the students were suspended from the
Premium Appeal United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al‚ 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Facts: Petitioner was John F. Tinker‚ Mary Beth Tinker‚ and Christopher Eckhardt‚ high school students in Des Moines‚ Iowa. In December 1964 several students were joined in protesting the Vietnam War. The form of protest was to wear a black armband for two weeks. When protesters arrived at school they were told to remove the arm bands or be suspended. Students took the suspension and did not return to
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Miranda V. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim‚ police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although‚ when he put his confession into
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) “Unreasonable search and seizures” One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Farwell‚ Benjamin CJU 134 Chp.8‚ Pg 286 Miranda V Arizona FACTS: On March 16‚ 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant‚ and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights‚ he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights‚ although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present
Premium Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Miranda v. Arizona Law