About the McKeiver vs. Pennsylvania case...........?
406736
Because juvenile court is a closed proceeding to protect the juvenile under the supposedly secret juvenile records being closed and none viewable to the public. A opening courtroom with other then lawyer judge and witnesses and parents or anybody pertaining to the case is violation of the juvenile privacy law. So if you bring 12 bipartisan in it would be violation of privacy.\n\nUnless you are being trialed as an adult. Then it's ok.
66659
Please read the article here:\nhttp://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/articles/10453.aspx
746750
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
750174
Look up the Tom Capano case in Delaware!\n\nhttp://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/capano/trial/
820603
Both of these particular cases involve religious conversions on the part of the plaintiffs.  McCorvey converted to Christianity in 1994 and was confirmed as a member in the Roman Catholic Church in 1998.\n\nThe details of the other case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) escape me, but something similar happened.
93436
The case is Curley v. NAMBLA.  It hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court as of yet.  As of last year, it was still in the Massachusetts court system.\nTo Izzy06:  They are not protecting NAMBLA, they are protecting A from being prosecuted for the crimes of B if A did not directly incite such actions.  If I ran a gun safety school, and a student of mine killed someone, I would hope not to be prosecuted for the murder.
686014
Silly me-I failed to click the link. Good thing you provided that link too as I would never believe anyone who told me that someone would be callous enough or stupid enough to think or say that privately let alone in public. Added to the fact that one of the victims was the MOTHER OF HIS TWO CHILDREN !! I must be missing something but I think those kids should get a free pass to off him. Then again, that's just my humble opinion.
148013
As flamedragon correctly points out, he didn't win, he lost. Darrow and his clients, Scopes and the ACLU, always knew they would lose the case and that was their intent. They wanted to lose the case and they did lose it.\n\nThe whole intention was for Darrow and Scopes to lose the case so it could be appealed to the Supreme Court and the law it was tried under proved unconstiutional.
146265
When is the law right, so to speak ! Look whats been happening all over the US and other countries too on how the law is so corrupt and how it handles numerous cases.\n\nThe best thing to have is witnesses to start the case off in the right direction !
370793
I like the one where fat people sue McDonalds for making them fat....I've been forced into McDonalds by gunpoint and made to eat Big Macs, haven't you?  What a bunch of idiots.  And the lawyers who represent them are even worse.  In my class on Torts (civil suits), there are enough ridiculous cases to go around...an assault is an intentional harmful or offensive contact....and offensive can be what the reasonable person deems so.....so you can only imagine.
153223
Milton D. Korman argued the cause for respondents in No. 4. With him on the brief were Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray and Lyman J. Umstead. [349 U.S. 294, 297]  \n\nJoseph Donald Craven, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 5. On the brief were H. Albert Young, then Attorney General, Clarence W. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, and Andrew D. Christie, Special Deputy to the Attorney General. \n\nIn response to the Court's invitation, 347 U.S. 483, 495-496, Solicitor General Sobeloff participated in the oral argument for the United States. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Assistant Attorney General Rankin, Philip Elman, Ralph S. Spritzer and Alan S. Rosenthal.
566003
check out this website for way more info, but the key point, very simply, is that this case set the precendent for the supreme court to have the power to decide if the ruling of another court (like a state supreme court) is in line with the u.s. constitution - this is the basic idea of judicial review.  so, for example, if a state court created a law saying that there was an oficial religion for that state, the supreme court could make that hear the case and rule that law null and void because it goes against the constitution.\n\nlike i said, you'll get way more info at this site, so don't just base your knowledge of what i've said, it's more in depth
132471
Hi Mitzi-\nI'm very familiar with PA law.  The theft is going to be based upon the amount involved.  I can almost guarantee that there will have to be restitution.  Sentencing depends on the person's past criminal history (if any), the facts of the case...if it was particularly heinous and the victims involved, etc. and the amount of cash or items taken.
891062
Ya think lol?  If anyone has the link to this information I'd appreciate having it, but I know that a few days back someone posted a link, which I did access, that showed the verdict was originally scheduled for sometime in October (19th I think), but was delayed to November per United States request.  Republicans are freaking out because they're going to lose the House and King George will finally have some check and balances put on him.  They're willing to trot out anything to try and buttress the vote their way.  The trouble is that we've seen this act before.
726698
I'm certain he is guilty. What kind of innocent person would lead the cops to chase after him for a long time after he lied and told them he would turn himself in? There were no other suspects that the police could find, and guilty people are let free a lot. The problem seems to be the amendment in the Consitution that says that a person can't be tried twice (double jeopardy), even if substatial evidence amounts against that person. I have heard a lot of rumors that a murder weapon was found, but that eveidence is now usless thanks to that amendment. Rich people like him can afford the best of lawyers, and his lawyer certainly was no amateur. He helped many other famous people walk free, and your lawyer runs most of the show at a trial. He knows all of the loopholes and how to bring his client out of a hole.
106745
I would imagine there's more to the story than just this.  Why don't you post some additional details, and then we can develop a better answer.  Just a brief summary of what is going on should do.  I can offer you an answer based just on what you've asked, but there's no point without having a better idea of the facts of your case.\n\nAnd - don't tell me anything other than what the state is alleging.  In other words, don't tell me you've got a ton  of explosives buried in your back yard.  You can tell me the state says you do, but don't you tell me yourself.
474495
Well, that was a very profound answer from a "blooming" law student.\n\nCare to enlighten us on what you found on this subject during your "free time"??  You have free time to look this up, more free time to type a response, but not time to tell us anything worth reading?? hhhmmmm\n\nGeez, you'd better add some substance to your answers once you graduate or the Bar will chew you up!!