Appeal And Error: Stark V. Ford Motor Co.

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

Holding: As the trial court correctly recognized, an extraordinary motion for new trial is not a remedy available to Smith because she pled guilty.

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

While the case is pre Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 also known as HIPPA, the case examines the right of a defendant to privacy when diagnosed with HIV and the right of society to be privileged to that information during a criminal trial.

Facts:          On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over

(a) Generally. A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence. The moving party shall state with particularity all the reasons why the motion should be granted. No objection to the motion for judgment shall be necessary. A party does not waive the right to make the motion by introducing evidence during the presentation of an opposing party’s case.

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

This court system hears cases that were appealed from the district courts. These are not challenging the jury decision itself, but rather any legal errors that may have been during the initial trial. For a conviction or sentence to be overturned, the Court of Appeals has to find the error(s), and be able to prove that they were enough to have affected the outcome of the trial. This decision would be considered a prejudicial error because it warrants the reversal of the previous judgment. If the error is insufficient in requiring a reversal of the judgment, it is considered a harmless error.

Secondly, as stated above, the burden of proof is on the appellant to prove that an error occurred and that the error was substantial. Errors that do not impinge on the substantial rights of the appellant are disregarded as harmless error.

Facts: States were looking at the lottery as an opportunity to raise their total revenue in hope to fund expensive work projects. While some states viewed the lottery as an asset, the other side viewed the lottery as harmful to families, the poor, and to public morals. The dispute led to the Federal Lottery Act of 1895, which was enacted by Congress to prohibit the buying and selling of lottery tickets across state lines. Charles Champion proceeds to ignore the Federal Lottery Act and is indicted by U.S. Marshall Ames for attempting to smuggle tickets of the Pan-American Lottery Company, from Texas to California. Champion believes his indictment is unconstitutional, claiming the Commerce Clause does not have power

In 1846 after Mr. Emersons death Scott tried to buy his and his families freedom by offering money to Mrs. Emerson which she refused & made Scott take legal matters into his own hands. That same year Scott filed a law suit against Mrs. Emerson for his freedom claiming that they had lived in a free state for two years and therefor had the right to become free. Trial didn't happen until 1847 where Mrs. Emerson claimed ownership of Scott & his wife. The verdict ruled against Scott. The case was retried and this time there was direct evidence of Emersons ownership of Scott & his wife but the jury found for Scotts freedom. Mrs. Emerson wanting to keep ownership of Scott appealed. In 1852 a trial was done again but this time it was settled that Scott

On July 25, 2016, I accidentally dropped my assigned I-Phone 5 at 520 King Street near the Deputy's desk near the entrance of the JD&R Court. The estimated cost for the cellular phone is $200.00

Even if the error is Constitutional, it is trial, not structural, in nature, subject to the same standard as procedural errors

Local police suspected Greenwood was dealing narcotics from his residence. The police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home. On April 6th 1984, investigator Stacner asked the neighborhood trash collector to pick up the garbage bags that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his house to turn them over to her. The police discovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search Greenwood’s home. The search found illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony narcotic charges. Greenwood posted bail.

Circumstance: Ms. Smalls (MHP) made face to face contact with Ms. Canady (MHS) and Drayton for initial visit.