Fred Stern & Company Case Brief

Summary: On April 18, 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested by police when they attempted to take an unregistered sawed-off double barrel shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Transporting a firearm that has a barrel under eighteen inches over state lines is not registered and has no stamped paperwork violates the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA was a, "revenue act, levying a $200 transfer tax on all covered firearms"(NYU Law, 61). This was a useful tax during this time because it helped control the gangsters from acquiring machine guns(NYU Law, 61). Miller and Layton's case was tried in an Arkansas district court by Judge Hiram Heartsill Ragon. On June 2, 1938 Miller and Layton pleaded guilty to one count of illegally transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, but Judge Ragon did not accepted their plea(NYU Law, 59).

Byrne relies on Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160 (1976), for the proposition that “a breach of a duty by a defendant will result in his liability in the third party criminal activity context when the breach enhances the likelihood of the particular criminal activity.” (Opposition at p. 9). First, Scott did not even hold that the landlord owed the plaintiff a duty—as that case was a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Id. at 161-62. Second, Scott applied exclusively to the duties a landlord owes to its tenants. Id. at 169. For the reasons stated in Part I, supra, the Co-Owners are not Byrne’s landlord. Finally, Scott expressly limited the scope of potential circumstances where a landlord may owe a tenant a duty to protect the tenant from criminal conduct to instances “where landlord knows, or should know, of criminal activity against persons or property in the common areas.” Id. (emphasis added). Byrne alleges no facts that—if true—would have put the Co-Owners on notice

Facts: Graham is a diabetic and asked one of his friends to take him to a convenience store so he could purchase juice to counteract an insulin reaction he had been experiencing. While in the store Graham noticed that the line to check out was extremely long and decided to leave the store. Graham left the store extremely fast, raising suspicion about his activity to police officer Connor. The suspicion caused Officer Connor to pull over Graham and his friend for an investigative stop. Police respondents handcuffed Graham and ignored his plea for them to stop, resulting in injuries.

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at approximately 12:07p.m, Client Joseph Dorsey was shot while leaving the Talbert House Spring Grove facility. Mr. Dorsey was leaving the facility at 12:07 on approved movement, after Mr. Dorsey left the facility he headed north on Avon St. where allegedly his assailants were waiting on him and shots were fired. Mr. Dorsey, was injured as a result of being the targeted victim in the incident, and was shot twice. Mr. Dorsey received one wound to the shoulder and one wound in the abdomen area. During the incident Mr. Dorsey, was able to run back into the facility after being shot twice. While Mr. Dorsey was fleeing his assailants the shooters pursued Mr. Dorsey and fired multiple shoots in his direction resulting in

v. Williams was a criminal case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the accused appealed the decision of; Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Three years later, Rubin's lawyers filed for a petition, this petition was granted by the US District Court judge Mr. Haddon Lee Sarokin

Mike Anderson was sentenced to 13 years in prison but was never called to serve his sentence. Now 13 years later on the date he is set to be released they realize their mistake and arrest him. It is now in the hands of the judge wither or not Mike will be forced to serve his sentence. Using the eight key questions we will make the right decision on whether or not to incarcerate Mike.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the first stop in an unfair labor practice dispute between an employer and a union. What happens when the NLRB is wrong in their judgment, or one of the parties needs further clarification? The next stop would be an appeals court, and Baltimore Sun Company v. NLRB is an example of this conflict.

The appellant, a former New South Wales police officer, was sentenced to imprisonment in New South Wales in 1986 for his involvement in a serious drug offence, and he was in prison there from April 1986 until he was released on parole in January 1991. The present appeal relates to his conviction in the Trial Division on 31 August 1994 of an offence which was stated in the indictment in the following terms:

Per summons and complaint, plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS approached him and asked if he swallowed something. Plaintiff states that informed MOS that he had swallowed a piece of candy then MOS arrested him. Plaintiff states that MOS struck him in the face and body. Plaintiff states that he was taken to Lutheran Hospital. Plaintiff accepted an ACD.

History of this case: The accused, Ms. Angelique Lyn Lavalee was in common law relationship with victim, Kevin Rust, for around 3-4 years between years 1983-1986. Their relationship was marred with violence, domestic physical intimidation, abuse and instances of woman-battering of Angelique at the hands of her abusive and brutal partner, Rust.

-Facts: “In 1999, Grissom was present at a dice game between Darrick Love and Shante Cannon. Love eventually won the game, but became angry when Cannon refused to pay him. Grissom later agreed to help Love find Cannon to collect the alleged debt. In the following days Grissom drove Love to several locations in search of Cannon. Approximately one week after the dice game, Cannon was fatally shot near the motel where he had been staying. Witnesses from the motel testified that they heard shots being fired, and saw a white car leave the scene. The police responded to the crime scene, saw a white car and pursued it. After a car chase, the white car crashed into a fire hydrant and two men fled from the vehicle. After a search on foot, the police found and arrested Love and Grissom. In the course of their search, the police found two handguns and jewelry in the area, all stained with blood. After testing the clothing Love and Grissom had been wearing the police found gunshot residue. The police determined that Love had been the shooter, and therefore, was likely the principal. The people decided to try Grissom as a complicitor. At trial, defense counsel argued that Grissom did not know what Love intended and that Grissom merely intended to help Love recover his gambling debt. Defense

Prior to Arthur Andersen & Co taking over Leslie Fay’s audits, BDO Seidman was their audit firm since the mid-1970s and issued unqualified opinions each year for Leslie Fay’s financial statements. BDO Seidman shortly withdrew their audit opinions on Leslie Fay’s 1990 and 1991 financial statements after the fraud claims were disclosed. In the fall of 1993, the audit committee completed their eight-month investigation of the accounting fraud that took place. There was a 600-page report issued and was submitted to the SEC for federal

1) Introduction: This unit contains a chapter on civil liberties and torts as well as a chapter on employment. The civil liberties chapter includes and discusses land owners liability to entrants, nuisance, trespassing, liability of farm animals, and negligence. It discusses several factors determining the legality of what liability a landowner has with his land. Invitees, licensees, trespassers, and children are a list of several different types of people that a landowner is responsible for on his property.

For over 70 years, the attorneys at Herman Herman & Katz, LLC have fought persistently to help victims reclaim their lives after an injury or loss of a loved one. Located in New Orleans, we specialize in personal injury cases and have helped thousands of clients get the compensation they deserve for injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of others. Accidents can be devastating. Loss of income, physical pain, and medical bills can inflict an enormous amount of stress on a family. During this time, the the last thing on a person’s mind is knowing and securing his or her rights. That’s where we come in. We are dedicated to ensuring our clients’ rights are protected, and our firm has recovered over $35 billion for them.