Dickens V. Johnson Case Summary

The attorneys failed to proffer any evidence in support of Solomon’s legal business enterprise, which he established with legal proceeds from the medical malpractice lawsuit. Furthermore, the attorneys never proffered any evidence on his behalf, which proved ownership, control, actual or constructive, or possession of the vehicles stopped by police. According to residents and property records, neither Johnson brother owned, occupied, possessed or control a property located at Oso. The property allegedly had $1,868,759 in cash and although such a very odd number, aside from questioning the veracity of the cash receipts, the indictment states that Mr. Solomon Johnson owned the vehicles, property, and currency.

After accusing Ray Buckely, she pursued more allegations against the school using weak evidence. According to information about the trial compiled by law Professor Douglas O. Linder, “[Judy Johnson] claimed that Peggy Buckey, Ray’s mother, was involved in satanic practices … most prosecutors would come to recognize Johnson's allegations as the delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic, but the snowball of suspicion had started rolling.'' (Linder). Professor Linder demonstrates that Judy is responsible for the controversy at McMartin Preschool. He illustrates how Judy’s lies led to an unnecessary investigation and wrongful imprisonment.

The judge refused, and he had to represent himself. “He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution 's witnesses, brought witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing

On November 21, 1973, Troy Leon Gregg and his companion robbed and murdered Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore, two innocent people who were giving them rides. Gregg was convicted for his actions and was given the death penalty. He argued that the sentence was violating his eighth amendment which is “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. Const. amend. VIII.)

(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services) In Davidson v. Cannon, a case heard immediately after Daniels, the Court reiterated its newfound belief that "where a government official is merely negligent in causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required." (The Battered Child 8) The future impacts of Joshua DeShaney’s case will last a long time, and effect many future cases.

The second reason was that the decision was justifiable. And the third reason was that everyone involved was aware of the process. These fact-based

The Court favored Sweat and stated that the actions were affecting Sweat’s ability to learn and should stop immediately (United States Courts,

It is imperative that school administrators understand the underlying argument of property rights in relation to student’s school attendance. The school administrator represents the government, and as such must provide equal protection to all students to take advantage of this right. They also must understand the relevance of taking away an individual’s right without due process of the law, which is particularly relevant to suspensions and

There was a recent storm in Hollywood, Florida that left many homes without power. This storm also affected prisoners that were still kept in prisons that lacked of power, supplies, and plumbing during the emergency. This situation relates to The Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects people from “cruel or unusual punishment”. Some might view that keeping them in prisons is wrong and against their will.

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.

Facts of the Case: Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated

Colin Newmark was diagnosed with cancer. The cancer was life threatening. His parents were Christian Scientists and refused to consent for chemotherapy for Colin. Their refusal was protected under State Law as it exempted parents from the neglect and abuse statutes if the refusal was supported by medical reasons. The plaintiff, Child Protective Services petitioned to continue treatment for Colin.

Rosario”). However, the district court decided that the plaintiff violated the “Confidentiality Act,” which “permits disclosure of confidential communications of a minor between the ages of twelve and eighteen if…the therapist finds disclosure to be in the best interest of the minor” (“Dr. Rosario”). The courts also determined that he violated “The Reporting Act,” which requires school personnel to immediately report suspected child abuse to authorities (“Pesce v. J”). Dr. Pesce also violated the J. Sterling Morton High School District Employment Contract by not promptly reporting the incident, and therefore, putting J.D. in danger. In addition, the courts decided that Pesce’s rights were not violated (“Dr. Rosario”).

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.

One of the most challenging trials Taylor experiences is the struggle to legally adopt Turtle. After Turtle almost gets molested while at the park with Edna, Taylor and Turtle start going to therapy with Cynthia, a social worker. During one of these sessions, Cynthia informs Taylor that the state has discovered that Turtle has no legal guardian. Not only is this true, “But there was other bad news. During the third week of sessions with Cynthia she informed me that it had recently come to the attention of the Child Protection Services Division of the Department of Economic Security...that I had no legal claim to Turtle” (Kingsolver 233).