Bad Frog Brewery Case Study

  E.   Miller Brewing Company's complaint includes a preliminary injunction that is supported by insufficient, irrelevant evidence that the district court did not postulate. F.   Miller Brewing Company's argument was declined in an action against Falstaff, because the Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit decided adversely that the issue held no validity.   5.      C =

Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. Grand Central Pub., 2010. Ringel, Paul. “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children.”

In September of last year, the right to die issue made it to the New York Court of Appeals where a panel of five judges all ruled against it. The argument made for the permittance of assisted suicide in this case was actually quite weak. New York passed a law in 1965 directly outlawing assisted suicide, but the appellates’ platform was that a doctor prescribing a lethal dose of medication is not actually assisted suicide and is therefore not in disagreement with the law. The judges immediately recognized that this was not remotely true since if the intention of a doctor is specifically to cause a patient's death then regardless of the method, it is assisted death. The judges went even further and actually denounced euthanasia itself.

Jamie Caetano fought her conviction of possession of a stun gun just this year. She claims she was protecting herself, in self-defense, against an abusive ex-boyfriend. Massachusetts argues that stun guns were not what the second amendment meant by “the right to bear arms” and is not common amongst military use and therefore should be excluded. In a unanimous decision, the supreme court sides with Caetano saying that although it wasn’t in existence during the founding and the enactment of the second amendment, the right to use this stun gun as a method of self-defense is still protected under the second

Bolar also argued that public policy in favor of availability of generic drugs immediately following patent expiration justified the experimental use of the patented chemical because denying such use would extend Roche’s monopoly beyond the date of patent expiration. The court rejected this argument, stating that such policy decisions should be made by congress. Likewise, the court decided that apparent policy conflicts between statutes such as the Food and Drug Act and the Patent Act should be decided by congress and not the courts. Shortly after Roche v

The first problem with using these as viable sources is the fact that they are surveys and not reliable statistical data that should be used for arguing how gun control laws affect violent crimes. The author had intended to use this information to compare violent crimes in the U.S. and England/Wales as the laws on guns were different in each nation. A simple problem with the reliability of this data is the fact that these are surveys. The author even went on to explain that these were surveys and not all crime is reported through voluntary surveys. I don’t think surveys should be used in an argumentative article about violence or gun control laws.

For instance, doctors should not falsify information during a clinical trial in order to pass a drug. These arguments are centered on a need to adhered to morals rather than with self-interest in mind. Non-moral argument on the other hand is an argument that does not contain a moral premise. Naturalistic fallacy (“is-ought fallacy”) is the assumption that things should be a certain way because a certain thing is this way. For example, someone might argue that eating candy is harmful for one’s teeth and thus one should prohibit from eating candy.

“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” “Your Honor, I cannot.”

What seems to be an endless debate over gun control has enraged gun-rights advocate for passing gun-control legislation in New York. New York has become the first and only state to pass gun control legislation. On mid-January Andrew Cuomo has signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearm Enforcement Act, Or SAFE Act, into law. The act makes the gun regulation much stricter by banning assault weapons including any semiautomatic weapon with detachable magazine and one military-style feature; limiting the magazine capacity from 10 rounds to seven; gun licenses needed to be renewed every five years; background check will be required to all gun sales, including private sales, with the exception between immediate family member; mentally incompetent are not allowed to purchase guns; and establish tougher penalties for the use of illegal gun. The

The Prohibition, for example was the ban of liquor from being manufactured and sold. In 1906 the Anti- Saloon League started making attacks on the sale of liquor. In turn many factories supported the ban of alcohol, (the Prohibition) so they could prevent any accidents to come and increase worker efficiency. In order to save grain for producing food there was, in 1917 after World War one started, a wartime prohibition. The 18th Amendment was then suggested by Congress which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors, for state ratification.

The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reaffirming that like in the district court, the policy was in fact, constitutional.

The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?

Back in June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Asian-American rock band named “The Slants” and stated the federal government cannot ban trademarks, on the grounds that it offends, to do so violates the first amendment right to freedom of speech. While the rock band was trying to trademark their name as an act of “re-appropriation,” an attempt to reclaim a slur used against their community, the outcome of the court ruling has opened a door for those who would use this ruling for less principled causes. The disparagement clause in the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act prohibited the registration of any mark that officials consider disparaging or offensive to people, institutions, beliefs, etc. Now that the clause is deemed unconstitutional for

According to Wolf v Colorado (1949) wolf’s attorneys case was that since the evidence that was obtained and used against him in court was not lawfully obtained it should not be admissible due to the fact that if it was a federal case automatically it would not have been admissible. So it did not make sense that it would be different for the state courts. The case was controversial because the Fourth Amendment does not clearly state that the states must follow the due process law of the Fourth Amendment. “Unlike the specific requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights (Amendments I to VIII) upon the administration of criminal justice by federal authority, the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.