- published: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
Create your page here
-
remove the playlistUnited States V. White
-
remove the playlistBreedlove V. Suttles
- remove the playlistUnited States V. White
- remove the playlistBreedlove V. Suttles
Christensen v. Harris County
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Facts
The sheriff's department in Harris County, Texas, in an attempt to reduce overtime expenditures, forced deputies to use accumulated compensatory time before they reached the limit which would require overtime payments. The petitioners argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited the forced use of "comp time." Respondents argued that the FLSA allows cashing out comp time and does not guarantee a minimum 40 hour work week.
The United States Department of Labor had issued an opinion letter stating that the forced use of comp time violated the act.
Judgment
The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (e.g., legislative rules) and less formal ones (e.g., opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibited the forced use of comp time. Justice Thomas delivered the 6-3 decision of the court in favor of Respondent Harris County. The case was argued on behalf of the United States by Matthew D. Roberts, for Petitioner by Michael T. Leibig and for Harris County, Texas by Michael P. Fleming.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Christensen_v._Harris_County
United States v. White
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.
Facts and Procedural History
Criminal defendant White was convicted of narcotics charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The conviction was based on evidence obtained from recorded conversations in 1965 and 1966 between the defendant White and a government informant wearing a concealed radio transmitter. White appealed the conviction, claiming the conversations were recorded without his permission, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy (see Katz), and the conversations were recorded without a warrant, violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, White argued that the recorded conversations should not have been admitted as evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 405 F.2d 838, reversed the district court and remanded, and certiorari was granted.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/United_States_v._White
Breedlove v. Suttles
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.
Background
At the relevant time, Georgia imposed a poll tax of $1.00 per year, levied generally on all inhabitants. The statute exempted from the tax all persons under 21 or over 60 years of age, and all females who do not register for voting. Under the state constitution, the tax must be paid by the person liable, together with arrears, before he can be registered for voting.
Nolan Breedlove, a white male, 28 years of age, declined to pay the tax, and was not allowed to register to vote. He filed a lawsuit challenging the Georgia law under the Fourteenth (both the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause) and the Nineteenth Amendments. T. Earl Suttles was named defendant in the case in his official capacity as tax collector of Fulton County, Georgia.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Breedlove_v._Suttles
Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co.
Taylor v. Standard Gas and Electric Company, 306 U.S. 307 (1939), was an important United States Supreme Court case that laid down the "Deep Rock doctrine" as a rule of bankruptcy and corporate law. This holds that claims, as creditors, upon an insolvent subsidiary company by controlling shareholders or other insiders, like managers or directors, will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors.
Facts
The Deep Rock Oil Corporation was an undercapitalized subsidiary of the defendant Standard Gas Company.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that, where a subsidiary corporation declares bankruptcy and an insider or controlling shareholder of that subsidiary corporation asserts claims as a creditor against the subsidiary, loans made by the insider to the subsidiary corporation may be deemed to receive the same treatment as shares of stock owned by the insider. Therefore, the insider's claims will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors, i.e. other creditors will be paid first, and if there is nothing left after other creditors are paid then the insider gets nothing. This also applies (and indeed the doctrine was first established) where a parent company asserts such claims against its own subsidiary.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Taylor_v._Standard_Gas_&_Electric_Co.
Poole v. Fleeger
Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185 (1837) is a 7-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee had properly entered into an agreement establishing a mutual border between the two states. The plaintiffs in the case were granted title to property improperly conveyed by the state of Tennessee north of this border. In the ruling, the Supreme Court asserted the fundamental right of states and nations to establish their borders regardless of private contract, and made a fundamental statement about the rights of parties to object to a trial court ruling under the rules of civil procedure.
Background
In 1606, during European colonization of the Americas, James I of England granted the Charter of 1606 to the newly established Virginia Company, asserting royal title to Native American-occupied land between the 34th and 45th latitudes and 100 miles (160 km) inland, and permitting the Virginia Company to establish colonies there. In 1609, James I redefined the Colony of Virginia's boundaries to extend the colony's northern and southern boundaries as well as asserting title to all land west to the Pacific Ocean. In 1632, Charles I of England took the Colony of Virginia's grant north of the Potomac River away from Virginia and gave it to the new colony known as the Province of Maryland. Subsequent negotiations between the Province of Pennsylvania colony and Colony of Virginia further established the Virginia colony's northwestern border.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Poole_v._Fleeger
Watson v. Jones
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case was based upon a dispute regarding the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The Court held that in adjudications of church property disputes, 1) courts cannot rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching, 2) where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decision of that structure, and 3) in the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation. Because the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church had a clear internal authority structure, the court granted control of the property to that group, even though it was only supported by a minority of the congregation.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Watson_v._Jones
Podcasts:
-
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971) Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White. On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote locatio...
published: 21 Oct 2020 -
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. White (1971) Supreme Court of the United States 401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076 Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041 --- Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a...
published: 27 May 2023 -
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
published: 04 Mar 2021 -
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age. United States v. White Calf (2011) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 634 F.3d 453 Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068 --- Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just t...
published: 16 Aug 2023 -
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003) The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest. After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authorit...
published: 06 Jun 2022 -
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011) An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter. Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial i...
published: 02 Mar 2023 -
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient. United States v. White (1978) United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth...
published: 09 Jun 2023 -
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected. United States v. White (2012) United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 698 F.3d 1005 Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/...
published: 16 Aug 2023 -
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990) Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White. An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex...
published: 13 Nov 2020 -
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence. The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws. United States v. White (2011) Uni...
published: 16 Aug 2023
developed with YouTube
1:25
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:25
- Uploaded Date: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
1:34
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:34
- Uploaded Date: 27 May 2023
- views: 80
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conv...
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1971)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 27 May 2023
- views: 80
1:30
United States v White (1971)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:30
- Uploaded Date: 04 Mar 2021
- views: 332
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
https://wn.com/United_States_V_White_(1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
- published: 04 Mar 2021
- views: 332
2:44
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:44
- Uploaded Date: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 27
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation....
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Calf_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 27
1:22
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:22
- Uploaded Date: 06 Jun 2022
- views: 204
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-brief...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 06 Jun 2022
- views: 204
2:17
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:17
- Uploaded Date: 02 Mar 2023
- views: 79
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_(2011)_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 02 Mar 2023
- views: 79
1:57
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:57
- Uploaded Date: 09 Jun 2023
- views: 10
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challe...
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1978)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 09 Jun 2023
- views: 10
2:14
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:14
- Uploaded Date: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 5
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However...
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2012)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 5
1:58
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:58
- Uploaded Date: 13 Nov 2020
- views: 2557
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Alabama_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 13 Nov 2020
- views: 2557
2:14
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:14
- Uploaded Date: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 2
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individ...
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 2
-
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
published: 31 Dec 2020 -
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 00:01:36 1 Text 00:02:10 2 Background 00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification 00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago. Learning by listening is a great way to: - increases imagination and understanding - improves your listening skills - improves your own spoken accent - learn while on the move - reduce eye strain Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to...
published: 03 Dec 2018 -
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
published: 04 Feb 2022 -
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964. Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v...
published: 15 Oct 2015 -
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
published: 02 Apr 2020 -
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
published: 10 Dec 2020 -
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
published: 23 Mar 2020 -
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875) The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett. Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prot...
published: 29 Dec 2020
developed with YouTube
1:32
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:32
- Uploaded Date: 31 Dec 2020
- views: 152
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
https://wn.com/Breedlove_V_Suttles_(1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
- published: 31 Dec 2020
- views: 152
15:42
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 15:42
- Uploaded Date: 03 Dec 2018
- views: 47
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:2...
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
You can find other Wikipedia audio articles too at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuKfABj2eGyjH3ntPxp4YeQ
You can upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
- Socrates
SUMMARY
=======
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
https://wn.com/Twenty_Fourth_Amendment_To_The_United_States_Constitution_|_Wikipedia_Audio_Article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
You can find other Wikipedia audio articles too at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuKfABj2eGyjH3ntPxp4YeQ
You can upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
- Socrates
SUMMARY
=======
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
- published: 03 Dec 2018
- views: 47
1:22
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:22
- Uploaded Date: 04 Feb 2022
- views: 90
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
https://wn.com/Oregon_V_Mitchell_(1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
- published: 04 Feb 2022
- views: 90
13:52
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 13:52
- Uploaded Date: 15 Oct 2015
- views: 313
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on...
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
This video is targeted to blind users.
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video
https://wn.com/Twenty_Fourth_Amendment_To_The_United_States_Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
This video is targeted to blind users.
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video
- published: 15 Oct 2015
- views: 313
1:12
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:12
- Uploaded Date: 02 Apr 2020
- views: 46
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
https://wn.com/Fairchild_V_Hughes_(1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
- published: 02 Apr 2020
- views: 46
1:34
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:34
- Uploaded Date: 10 Dec 2020
- views: 560
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
https://wn.com/Crawford_V_Marion_County_Election_Board_(2008)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
- published: 10 Dec 2020
- views: 560
1:32
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:32
- Uploaded Date: 23 Mar 2020
- views: 941
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
https://wn.com/Lemon_V_Kurtzman_(1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
- published: 23 Mar 2020
- views: 941
1:02
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 1:02
- Uploaded Date: 29 Dec 2020
- views: 1385
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to vote. The state trial court rejected her argument, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Minor_V._Hapersett_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to vote. The state trial court rejected her argument, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 29 Dec 2020
- views: 1385
1:25
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and coun...
published: 21 Oct 2020
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Report rights infringement
- published: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
1:34
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issu...
published: 27 May 2023
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Report rights infringement
- published: 27 May 2023
- views: 80
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
1:30
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
published: 04 Mar 2021
United States v White (1971)
United States v White (1971)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 04 Mar 2021
- views: 332
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
2:44
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in s...
published: 16 Aug 2023
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Report rights infringement
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 27
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
1:22
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and coun...
published: 06 Jun 2022
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Report rights infringement
- published: 06 Jun 2022
- views: 204
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
2:17
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and coun...
published: 02 Mar 2023
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Report rights infringement
- published: 02 Mar 2023
- views: 79
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
1:57
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also...
published: 09 Jun 2023
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Report rights infringement
- published: 09 Jun 2023
- views: 10
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
2:14
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his websi...
published: 16 Aug 2023
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Report rights infringement
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 5
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
1:58
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and coun...
published: 13 Nov 2020
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Report rights infringement
- published: 13 Nov 2020
- views: 2557
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
2:14
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror ...
published: 16 Aug 2023
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
- Report rights infringement
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 2
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
Christensen v. Harris County
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring that employees schedule time off so that they do not accrue time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Facts
The sheriff's department in Harris County, Texas, in an attempt to reduce overtime expenditures, forced deputies to use accumulated compensatory time before they reached the limit which would require overtime payments. The petitioners argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited the forced use of "comp time." Respondents argued that the FLSA allows cashing out comp time and does not guarantee a minimum 40 hour work week.
The United States Department of Labor had issued an opinion letter stating that the forced use of comp time violated the act.
Judgment
The Court held that an opinion letter from the Department of Labor stating that an employer had to first get the employee to agree before requiring the employee to schedule time off did not receive Chevron deference and instead should receive the less deferential standard of Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The majority attempted to draw a bright line between formal agency documents (e.g., legislative rules) and less formal ones (e.g., opinion letters). Therefore, the opinion letter of the Department of Labor was not binding on the court. The court went on to state that there is nothing in the FLSA that prohibited the forced use of comp time. Justice Thomas delivered the 6-3 decision of the court in favor of Respondent Harris County. The case was argued on behalf of the United States by Matthew D. Roberts, for Petitioner by Michael T. Leibig and for Harris County, Texas by Michael P. Fleming.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Christensen_v._Harris_County
1:32
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
published: 31 Dec 2020
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 31 Dec 2020
- views: 152
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
15:42
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United ...
published: 03 Dec 2018
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
- Report rights infringement
- published: 03 Dec 2018
- views: 47
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
You can find other Wikipedia audio articles too at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuKfABj2eGyjH3ntPxp4YeQ
You can upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
- Socrates
SUMMARY
=======
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
1:22
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
published: 04 Feb 2022
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 04 Feb 2022
- views: 90
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
13:52
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and ...
published: 15 Oct 2015
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Oct 2015
- views: 313
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
This video is targeted to blind users.
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video
1:12
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
published: 02 Apr 2020
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 02 Apr 2020
- views: 46
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
1:34
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
published: 10 Dec 2020
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 10 Dec 2020
- views: 560
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
1:32
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
published: 23 Mar 2020
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 23 Mar 2020
- views: 941
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
1:02
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and coun...
published: 29 Dec 2020
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
- Report rights infringement
- published: 29 Dec 2020
- views: 1385
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to vote. The state trial court rejected her argument, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)...
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Const...
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)...
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Const...
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)...
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)...
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)...
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case E...
-
by Crazy Club Band
The Beer
by: Crazy Club BandCome on,you'll play!
Welcome-----!!
Try again:
First time is ok.
Now who are you to go in?
Who are you to drink?
Who are you to play this?
Who are you to rock me?
And you want more???
Now who are you to go in?
Who are you to drink?
Who are you to play this?
Who are you to rock me?
And you want more???
Is drink time!
Is fight time!
Is eat time!
Is sleep time!
Noooooo!Is rock you time!
Now who are you to go in?
Who are you to drink?
Who are you to play this?
Who are you to rock me?
And you want more???
Let's go!!
Put it!
Yaaaaaaaaaaaahapp-----!!
Try again:
First time is bad!
Now who are you to go in?
Who are you to drink?
Who are you to play this?
Who are you to rock me?
And you want more???
Im'I!!!And you?
Ok I'll get out!
Now who are you to go in?
Who are you to drink?
Who are you to play this?
Who are you to rock me?
And you want more???
No!
Ok.