- published: 26 Mar 2019
- views: 14389
-
remove the playlistWhigs (british Political Party)
-
remove the playlistUnited States V. White
- remove the playlistWhigs (british Political Party)
- remove the playlistUnited States V. White
- Whig Party (United States)
- Whigs (British political party)
- United States v. White
- Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
- Breedlove v. Suttles
Whig Party (United States)
The Whig Party was a political party active in the middle of the 19th century in the United States. Three Presidents were current members of the Party. Along with the rival Democratic Party, it was central to the Second Party System from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s. It originally formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson (in office 1829–37) and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization, banking and economic protectionism to stimulate manufacturing. It appealed to entrepreneurs and planters, but had little appeal to farmers or unskilled workers. It included many active Protestants, and voiced a moralistic opposition to the Jacksonian Indian removal policies. The "Whig" name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence. "Whig" meant opposing tyranny. Historian Frank Towers has specified a deep ideological divide:
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Whig_Party_(United_States)
Whigs (British political party)
The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute monarchy. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715, and remained totally dominant until King George III, coming to the throne in 1760, allowed Tories back in. The "Whig Supremacy" (1715–1760) was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failed Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession and local officials. The major leader of the Whigs in this period was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Whigs_(British_political_party)
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
Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury.
Background
Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated.
Decision of the Court
The US Supreme Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The court went on to elaborate: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one."
See also
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Blanton_v._City_of_North_Las_Vegas
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
Podcasts:
-
What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity ~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~ Title: What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party) Created on: 2019-03-26 Source Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party) ------ Description: The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute monarchy. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control o...
published: 26 Mar 2019 -
Whigs (British political party)
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon. https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20 Whigs (British political party) The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. =======Image-Copyright-Info======= Image is in public domain Artist-Info: Jan Wyck (1644–1702) Alternative names Jan Wijck, Johan Wyck, John Wyck Description Dutch painter and etcher Date of birth/death Summer 1644 26 October 1702 Location of birth/death Haarlem Mortlake Work period from 1658 until 1702 Work location Utrecht (city) (1658-1664), London (1664-1702) Authority control VIAF: 291291452 Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_III_Landing_at_Brixham,_Torbay,_5_...
published: 12 Jan 2016 -
The history of colors in British politics
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political party much easier. We take a look at the origins of the colors and symbols used by the UK's main political parties.
published: 28 Nov 2019 -
Whig Party: Political Beliefs, Members, and Collapse
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1834 and affiliations included Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln. The Daily Dose provides microlearning history documentaries like this one delivered to your inbox daily: https://dailydosedocumentary.com We strive for accuracy and unbiased fairness, but if you spot something that doesn’t look right please submit a correction suggestion here: https://forms.gle/UtRUTvgMK3HZsyDJA Learn more: https://dailydosedocumentary.com/whig-party/ Subscribe for daily emails: https://subscribe.dailydosenow.com/ Become a Patron: https://patreon.com/dailydosenow Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyDose18 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailydosenow Click to subscrib...
published: 31 Jan 2023 -
Britain's Weird, Small Political Parties Explained - TLDR News
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhOl6uRlxryALlT5yifldw Scottish Elections: https://youtu.be/pmJiOtgEDYQ Welsh Elections: https://youtu.be/kPdDCvazzFA London Mayoral Elections: https://youtu.be/nxdkRw_RNRI Police & Crime Commissioner Elections: https://youtu.be/WHlB-Ip6AcI As Britain heads into election season (if you didn't know a bunch of elections are taking place on May 6th) we thought we should take a look at the parties which don't normally attract attention. So in this video, we look at Britain's fringe parties, the ones who have no real shot at winning but for some reason still take part. Ft: The Yorkshire Party, UKIP, The Liberal Party, Aontu, the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Christian Peoples Alliance Follo...
published: 04 May 2021 -
Whigs and Tories
published: 18 Nov 2020 -
The Whig and Tory Parties| Whigs and Tories
Hi friends, I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", which is created in collaboration with Dr. Archana Bobade, HOD (English), Shri Shivaji Arts and Commerce College, Amravati, regarding English literature and criticism. The channel 'Literature Guide" is designed for the people who want to expand their horizon of knowledge of English Literature and it will be helpful for the students of literature as well as people. This video is about the emergence of the Whig and Tory parties in England. In the reign of William and Mary, two chief parties - the Whig and the Tory dominated the political arena. These two derogatory terms for the two parties were employed in Charles II's reign. It was used for those people who disliked James Stuart and they wanted to kee...
published: 01 Jun 2020 -
A Brief History of the Whig Party
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com Here's the story of the rise and the fall (and the rise again) of the Whig Party. Please subscribe to my podcast! http://iammrbeat.podomatic.com All images in the public domain. For collaborations and business inquiries, please contact via Channel Pages: http://ChannelPages.com/iammrbeat
published: 03 Jan 2014 -
Going the Way of the Whigs | Casual Historian
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs? The British History of Westeros: https://youtu.be/UfCTkB6qhUI Are We Overpopulated?: https://youtu.be/ZRB8173LwJA https://www.youtube.com/user/grantghurst https://twitter.com/GrantGHurst https://www.facebook.com/GrantGHurst/
published: 20 Jun 2016 -
The Whig Party on BBC Daily Politics 9 Dec 14
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broadcast 9 December 2014. Interviewer Jo Coburn.
published: 13 Dec 2014
developed with YouTube
3:10
What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:10
- Uploaded Date: 26 Mar 2019
- views: 14389
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity
~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~
Title: What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British pol...
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity
~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~
Title: What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
Created on: 2019-03-26
Source Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party)
------
Description: The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute monarchy. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715 and remained totally dominant until King George III, coming to the throne in 1760, allowed Tories back in. The Whig Supremacy was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failed Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession and local offices. The Party's hold on power was so strong and durable, historians call the period from roughly 1714 to 1783 the age of the Whig Oligarchy. The first great leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government through the period 1721–1742 and whose protégé Henry Pelham led from 1743 to 1754. Both parties began as loose groupings or tendencies, but became quite formal by 1784 with the ascension of Charles James Fox as the leader of a reconstituted Whig Party, arrayed against the governing party of the new Tories under William Pitt the Younger. Both parties were founded on rich politicians more than on popular votes, and there were elections to the House of Commons, but a small number of men controlled most of the voters. The Whig Party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession and toleration for nonconformist Protestants , while some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claim to the throne and virtually all Tories supported the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. However, by the first half of the 19th century the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise . The 19th century Whig support for Catholic emancipation was a complete reversal of the party's historic sharply anti-Catholic position at its late 17th century origin.
------
To see your favorite topic here, fill out this request form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScU0dLbeWsc01IC0AaO8sgaSgxMFtvBL31c_pjnwEZUiq99Fw/viewform
------
Source: Wikipedia.org articles, adapted under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ license.
Support: Donations can be made from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give to support Wikimedia Foundation and knowledge sharing.
https://wn.com/What_Is_Whigs_(British_Political_Party)_,_Explain_Whigs_(British_Political_Party)
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity
~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~
Title: What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
Created on: 2019-03-26
Source Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party)
------
Description: The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute monarchy. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715 and remained totally dominant until King George III, coming to the throne in 1760, allowed Tories back in. The Whig Supremacy was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failed Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession and local offices. The Party's hold on power was so strong and durable, historians call the period from roughly 1714 to 1783 the age of the Whig Oligarchy. The first great leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government through the period 1721–1742 and whose protégé Henry Pelham led from 1743 to 1754. Both parties began as loose groupings or tendencies, but became quite formal by 1784 with the ascension of Charles James Fox as the leader of a reconstituted Whig Party, arrayed against the governing party of the new Tories under William Pitt the Younger. Both parties were founded on rich politicians more than on popular votes, and there were elections to the House of Commons, but a small number of men controlled most of the voters. The Whig Party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession and toleration for nonconformist Protestants , while some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claim to the throne and virtually all Tories supported the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. However, by the first half of the 19th century the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise . The 19th century Whig support for Catholic emancipation was a complete reversal of the party's historic sharply anti-Catholic position at its late 17th century origin.
------
To see your favorite topic here, fill out this request form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScU0dLbeWsc01IC0AaO8sgaSgxMFtvBL31c_pjnwEZUiq99Fw/viewform
------
Source: Wikipedia.org articles, adapted under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ license.
Support: Donations can be made from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give to support Wikimedia Foundation and knowledge sharing.
20:16
Whigs (British political party)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 20:16
- Uploaded Date: 12 Jan 2016
- views: 1679
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20
Whigs (British political party)
...
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20
Whigs (British political party)
The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
=======Image-Copyright-Info=======
Image is in public domain
Artist-Info: Jan Wyck (1644–1702) Alternative names Jan Wijck, Johan Wyck, John Wyck Description Dutch painter and etcher Date of birth/death Summer 1644 26 October 1702 Location of birth/death Haarlem Mortlake Work period from 1658 until 1702 Work location Utrecht (city) (1658-1664), London (1664-1702) Authority control VIAF: 291291452
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_III_Landing_at_Brixham,_Torbay,_5_November_1688.jpg
=======Image-Copyright-Info========
-Video is targeted to blind users
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
image source in video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKY9E-5Rz4
https://wn.com/Whigs_(British_Political_Party)
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20
Whigs (British political party)
The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
=======Image-Copyright-Info=======
Image is in public domain
Artist-Info: Jan Wyck (1644–1702) Alternative names Jan Wijck, Johan Wyck, John Wyck Description Dutch painter and etcher Date of birth/death Summer 1644 26 October 1702 Location of birth/death Haarlem Mortlake Work period from 1658 until 1702 Work location Utrecht (city) (1658-1664), London (1664-1702) Authority control VIAF: 291291452
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_III_Landing_at_Brixham,_Torbay,_5_November_1688.jpg
=======Image-Copyright-Info========
-Video is targeted to blind users
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
image source in video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKY9E-5Rz4
- published: 12 Jan 2016
- views: 1679
3:07
The history of colors in British politics
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:07
- Uploaded Date: 28 Nov 2019
- views: 39696
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political party much easier. We take a look at the origins of the colors and sy...
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political party much easier. We take a look at the origins of the colors and symbols used by the UK's main political parties.
https://wn.com/The_History_Of_Colors_In_British_Politics
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political party much easier. We take a look at the origins of the colors and symbols used by the UK's main political parties.
- published: 28 Nov 2019
- views: 39696
3:23
Whig Party: Political Beliefs, Members, and Collapse
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:23
- Uploaded Date: 31 Jan 2023
- views: 12507
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1834 and affiliations included Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Abraha...
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1834 and affiliations included Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
The Daily Dose provides microlearning history documentaries like this one delivered to your inbox daily: https://dailydosedocumentary.com
We strive for accuracy and unbiased fairness, but if you spot something that doesn’t look right please submit a correction suggestion here: https://forms.gle/UtRUTvgMK3HZsyDJA
Learn more: https://dailydosedocumentary.com/whig-party/
Subscribe for daily emails: https://subscribe.dailydosenow.com/
Become a Patron: https://patreon.com/dailydosenow
Follow us on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyDose18
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailydosenow
Click to subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DailyDoseDocumentary?sub_confirmation=1
#documentary #history #biography
Today's Daily Dose short history film covers the rise and fall of the Whig Party in early American politics. The filmmaker has included the original voice over script to further assist your understanding:
Today on The Daily Dose, The Rise & Fall of the Whig Party.
Once one of two most prominent political parties in the United States, the Whig party rose to power in 1834 in objection to President Andrew Jackson’s populist ideals and outright usurpation of congressional powers, after “King Andrew the First,” as the president became known to the Whigs, refused to fund the second National Bank. While the Jacksonian Democrats attempted to pigeonhole the Whigs as wealthy Northern elites bent on sidestepping the will of the people, Whig party members comprised a coalition of northern and southern politicians, who railed against Jackson’s forced relocation of Native Americans, at the same time dodging as best they could the escalating issue of slavery within the ever-expanding United States. Some of the party’s most influential pre-Civil War leaders included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, John Quincy Adams and one-term Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln.
During its 20-year existence, the Whig Party remained staunchly critical of westward expansion under the banner of manifest destiny, sending William Henry Harrison to the White House after the presidential election of 1840, who subsequently died of pneumonia just 32 days after taking office. After Whig presidential candidate Henry Clay lost to Democrat James Polk in the presidential election of 1844, Whig candidate and Mexican-American war hero Zachary Taylor again took the White House in the election of 1848, while his death two years later from a gastro-intestinal illness did much to derail the forward momentum of the party.
When the divisive issue of slavery came to a head in the 1850s, including the wildly unpopular Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Whig party collapsed just as abruptly as its meteoric rise to power. With northern and southern legislators hopelessly deadlocked over the issue of slavery, prominent Whigs such as Thaddeus Stevens, William Seward and Abraham Lincoln switched to the newly-formed Republican party, while conservative anti-immigrant, nativist proponents within the failing Whig party followed Millard Fillmore to the Know Nothing party, leading William Seward to deliver the Whig’s eulogy in 1855, when he stated, “Let, then, the Whig party pass. It committed a grievous fault, and grievously hath it answered it. Let it march out of the field, therefore, with all the honors,” making the Whig party, a brief yet bygone era in early American politics.
And there you have it, the rise and fall of the Whig party, today on The Daily Dose.
https://wn.com/Whig_Party_Political_Beliefs,_Members,_And_Collapse
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1834 and affiliations included Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
The Daily Dose provides microlearning history documentaries like this one delivered to your inbox daily: https://dailydosedocumentary.com
We strive for accuracy and unbiased fairness, but if you spot something that doesn’t look right please submit a correction suggestion here: https://forms.gle/UtRUTvgMK3HZsyDJA
Learn more: https://dailydosedocumentary.com/whig-party/
Subscribe for daily emails: https://subscribe.dailydosenow.com/
Become a Patron: https://patreon.com/dailydosenow
Follow us on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyDose18
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailydosenow
Click to subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DailyDoseDocumentary?sub_confirmation=1
#documentary #history #biography
Today's Daily Dose short history film covers the rise and fall of the Whig Party in early American politics. The filmmaker has included the original voice over script to further assist your understanding:
Today on The Daily Dose, The Rise & Fall of the Whig Party.
Once one of two most prominent political parties in the United States, the Whig party rose to power in 1834 in objection to President Andrew Jackson’s populist ideals and outright usurpation of congressional powers, after “King Andrew the First,” as the president became known to the Whigs, refused to fund the second National Bank. While the Jacksonian Democrats attempted to pigeonhole the Whigs as wealthy Northern elites bent on sidestepping the will of the people, Whig party members comprised a coalition of northern and southern politicians, who railed against Jackson’s forced relocation of Native Americans, at the same time dodging as best they could the escalating issue of slavery within the ever-expanding United States. Some of the party’s most influential pre-Civil War leaders included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, John Quincy Adams and one-term Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln.
During its 20-year existence, the Whig Party remained staunchly critical of westward expansion under the banner of manifest destiny, sending William Henry Harrison to the White House after the presidential election of 1840, who subsequently died of pneumonia just 32 days after taking office. After Whig presidential candidate Henry Clay lost to Democrat James Polk in the presidential election of 1844, Whig candidate and Mexican-American war hero Zachary Taylor again took the White House in the election of 1848, while his death two years later from a gastro-intestinal illness did much to derail the forward momentum of the party.
When the divisive issue of slavery came to a head in the 1850s, including the wildly unpopular Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Whig party collapsed just as abruptly as its meteoric rise to power. With northern and southern legislators hopelessly deadlocked over the issue of slavery, prominent Whigs such as Thaddeus Stevens, William Seward and Abraham Lincoln switched to the newly-formed Republican party, while conservative anti-immigrant, nativist proponents within the failing Whig party followed Millard Fillmore to the Know Nothing party, leading William Seward to deliver the Whig’s eulogy in 1855, when he stated, “Let, then, the Whig party pass. It committed a grievous fault, and grievously hath it answered it. Let it march out of the field, therefore, with all the honors,” making the Whig party, a brief yet bygone era in early American politics.
And there you have it, the rise and fall of the Whig party, today on The Daily Dose.
- published: 31 Jan 2023
- views: 12507
12:01
Britain's Weird, Small Political Parties Explained - TLDR News
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 12:01
- Uploaded Date: 04 May 2021
- views: 350887
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII
JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhOl6uRlxryALlT5yifldw
Scottish Elections: https://youtu.be/pm...
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII
JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhOl6uRlxryALlT5yifldw
Scottish Elections: https://youtu.be/pmJiOtgEDYQ
Welsh Elections: https://youtu.be/kPdDCvazzFA
London Mayoral Elections: https://youtu.be/nxdkRw_RNRI
Police & Crime Commissioner Elections: https://youtu.be/WHlB-Ip6AcI
As Britain heads into election season (if you didn't know a bunch of elections are taking place on May 6th) we thought we should take a look at the parties which don't normally attract attention. So in this video, we look at Britain's fringe parties, the ones who have no real shot at winning but for some reason still take part.
Ft: The Yorkshire Party, UKIP, The Liberal Party, Aontu, the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Christian Peoples Alliance
Follow TLDR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tldrnewsuk
Discord: https://discord.gg/NH65VUpw9N
TLDR Store: https://tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: https://teespring.com/stores/tldr-summer-2020
Support TLDR on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: https://tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
https://wn.com/Britain's_Weird,_Small_Political_Parties_Explained_Tldr_News
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII
JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhOl6uRlxryALlT5yifldw
Scottish Elections: https://youtu.be/pmJiOtgEDYQ
Welsh Elections: https://youtu.be/kPdDCvazzFA
London Mayoral Elections: https://youtu.be/nxdkRw_RNRI
Police & Crime Commissioner Elections: https://youtu.be/WHlB-Ip6AcI
As Britain heads into election season (if you didn't know a bunch of elections are taking place on May 6th) we thought we should take a look at the parties which don't normally attract attention. So in this video, we look at Britain's fringe parties, the ones who have no real shot at winning but for some reason still take part.
Ft: The Yorkshire Party, UKIP, The Liberal Party, Aontu, the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Christian Peoples Alliance
Follow TLDR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tldrnewsuk
Discord: https://discord.gg/NH65VUpw9N
TLDR Store: https://tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: https://teespring.com/stores/tldr-summer-2020
Support TLDR on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: https://tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
- published: 04 May 2021
- views: 350887
7:16
Whigs and Tories
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:16
- Uploaded Date: 18 Nov 2020
- views: 3101
- published: 18 Nov 2020
- views: 3101
2:15
The Whig and Tory Parties| Whigs and Tories
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:15
- Uploaded Date: 01 Jun 2020
- views: 17412
Hi friends,
I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", which is created in collaboration with Dr. Archana Bobade, HOD (English...
Hi friends,
I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", which is created in collaboration with Dr. Archana Bobade, HOD (English), Shri Shivaji Arts and Commerce College, Amravati, regarding English literature and criticism. The channel 'Literature Guide" is designed for the people who want to expand their horizon of knowledge of English Literature and it will be helpful for the students of literature as well as people.
This video is about the emergence of the Whig and Tory parties in England. In the reign of William and Mary, two chief parties - the Whig and the Tory dominated the political arena. These two derogatory terms for the two parties were employed in Charles II's reign. It was used for those people who disliked James Stuart and they wanted to keep him away from the throne because he favoured the Catholics.
This is a short video like all my videos but it will be a great support for the students to understand the origin and role of these parties and their alliance to a few literary writers.
https://wn.com/The_Whig_And_Tory_Parties|_Whigs_And_Tories
Hi friends,
I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", which is created in collaboration with Dr. Archana Bobade, HOD (English), Shri Shivaji Arts and Commerce College, Amravati, regarding English literature and criticism. The channel 'Literature Guide" is designed for the people who want to expand their horizon of knowledge of English Literature and it will be helpful for the students of literature as well as people.
This video is about the emergence of the Whig and Tory parties in England. In the reign of William and Mary, two chief parties - the Whig and the Tory dominated the political arena. These two derogatory terms for the two parties were employed in Charles II's reign. It was used for those people who disliked James Stuart and they wanted to keep him away from the throne because he favoured the Catholics.
This is a short video like all my videos but it will be a great support for the students to understand the origin and role of these parties and their alliance to a few literary writers.
- published: 01 Jun 2020
- views: 17412
8:11
A Brief History of the Whig Party
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 8:11
- Uploaded Date: 03 Jan 2014
- views: 262827
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com
Here's the story of the rise and the fall (and the rise again) of the Whig Party.
Please subscrib...
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com
Here's the story of the rise and the fall (and the rise again) of the Whig Party.
Please subscribe to my podcast! http://iammrbeat.podomatic.com
All images in the public domain.
For collaborations and business inquiries, please contact via Channel Pages: http://ChannelPages.com/iammrbeat
https://wn.com/A_Brief_History_Of_The_Whig_Party
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com
Here's the story of the rise and the fall (and the rise again) of the Whig Party.
Please subscribe to my podcast! http://iammrbeat.podomatic.com
All images in the public domain.
For collaborations and business inquiries, please contact via Channel Pages: http://ChannelPages.com/iammrbeat
- published: 03 Jan 2014
- views: 262827
3:43
Going the Way of the Whigs | Casual Historian
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 3:43
- Uploaded Date: 20 Jun 2016
- views: 32394
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs?
The British History of Westeros: https://youtu.be/UfCTkB6qhUI
Are We Overpopulated?: https:/...
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs?
The British History of Westeros: https://youtu.be/UfCTkB6qhUI
Are We Overpopulated?: https://youtu.be/ZRB8173LwJA
https://www.youtube.com/user/grantghurst
https://twitter.com/GrantGHurst
https://www.facebook.com/GrantGHurst/
https://wn.com/Going_The_Way_Of_The_Whigs_|_Casual_Historian
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs?
The British History of Westeros: https://youtu.be/UfCTkB6qhUI
Are We Overpopulated?: https://youtu.be/ZRB8173LwJA
https://www.youtube.com/user/grantghurst
https://twitter.com/GrantGHurst
https://www.facebook.com/GrantGHurst/
- published: 20 Jun 2016
- views: 32394
4:12
The Whig Party on BBC Daily Politics 9 Dec 14
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 4:12
- Uploaded Date: 13 Dec 2014
- views: 6950
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broadcast 9 December 2014. Interviewer Jo Coburn.
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broadcast 9 December 2014. Interviewer Jo Coburn.
https://wn.com/The_Whig_Party_On_BBC_Daily_Politics_9_Dec_14
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broadcast 9 December 2014. Interviewer Jo Coburn.
- published: 13 Dec 2014
- views: 6950
-
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
- published: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
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
3:10
What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity
~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~
Title...
published: 26 Mar 2019
What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 26 Mar 2019
- views: 14389
#Whigs(Britishpoliticalparty) #audioversity
~~~ Whigs (British political party) ~~~
Title: What is Whigs (British political party)?, Explain Whigs (British political party)
Created on: 2019-03-26
Source Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party)
------
Description: The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute monarchy. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715 and remained totally dominant until King George III, coming to the throne in 1760, allowed Tories back in. The Whig Supremacy was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failed Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession and local offices. The Party's hold on power was so strong and durable, historians call the period from roughly 1714 to 1783 the age of the Whig Oligarchy. The first great leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government through the period 1721–1742 and whose protégé Henry Pelham led from 1743 to 1754. Both parties began as loose groupings or tendencies, but became quite formal by 1784 with the ascension of Charles James Fox as the leader of a reconstituted Whig Party, arrayed against the governing party of the new Tories under William Pitt the Younger. Both parties were founded on rich politicians more than on popular votes, and there were elections to the House of Commons, but a small number of men controlled most of the voters. The Whig Party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession and toleration for nonconformist Protestants , while some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claim to the throne and virtually all Tories supported the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. However, by the first half of the 19th century the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise . The 19th century Whig support for Catholic emancipation was a complete reversal of the party's historic sharply anti-Catholic position at its late 17th century origin.
------
To see your favorite topic here, fill out this request form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScU0dLbeWsc01IC0AaO8sgaSgxMFtvBL31c_pjnwEZUiq99Fw/viewform
------
Source: Wikipedia.org articles, adapted under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ license.
Support: Donations can be made from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give to support Wikimedia Foundation and knowledge sharing.
20:16
Whigs (British political party)
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.
https:/...
published: 12 Jan 2016
Whigs (British political party)
Whigs (British political party)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 12 Jan 2016
- views: 1679
If you find our videos helpful you can support us by buying something from amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/?tag=wiki-audio-20
Whigs (British political party)
The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
=======Image-Copyright-Info=======
Image is in public domain
Artist-Info: Jan Wyck (1644–1702) Alternative names Jan Wijck, Johan Wyck, John Wyck Description Dutch painter and etcher Date of birth/death Summer 1644 26 October 1702 Location of birth/death Haarlem Mortlake Work period from 1658 until 1702 Work location Utrecht (city) (1658-1664), London (1664-1702) Authority control VIAF: 291291452
Image Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_III_Landing_at_Brixham,_Torbay,_5_November_1688.jpg
=======Image-Copyright-Info========
-Video is targeted to blind users
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
image source in video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLKY9E-5Rz4
3:07
The history of colors in British politics
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political...
published: 28 Nov 2019
The history of colors in British politics
The history of colors in British politics
- Report rights infringement
- published: 28 Nov 2019
- views: 39696
Just like commercial branding, a bold color and striking logo make recognizing a political party much easier. We take a look at the origins of the colors and symbols used by the UK's main political parties.
3:23
Whig Party: Political Beliefs, Members, and Collapse
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1...
published: 31 Jan 2023
Whig Party: Political Beliefs, Members, and Collapse
Whig Party: Political Beliefs, Members, and Collapse
- Report rights infringement
- published: 31 Jan 2023
- views: 12507
The Whig Party was a short-lived political party rising to power in the United States in 1834 and affiliations included Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
The Daily Dose provides microlearning history documentaries like this one delivered to your inbox daily: https://dailydosedocumentary.com
We strive for accuracy and unbiased fairness, but if you spot something that doesn’t look right please submit a correction suggestion here: https://forms.gle/UtRUTvgMK3HZsyDJA
Learn more: https://dailydosedocumentary.com/whig-party/
Subscribe for daily emails: https://subscribe.dailydosenow.com/
Become a Patron: https://patreon.com/dailydosenow
Follow us on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyDose18
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailydosenow
Click to subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DailyDoseDocumentary?sub_confirmation=1
#documentary #history #biography
Today's Daily Dose short history film covers the rise and fall of the Whig Party in early American politics. The filmmaker has included the original voice over script to further assist your understanding:
Today on The Daily Dose, The Rise & Fall of the Whig Party.
Once one of two most prominent political parties in the United States, the Whig party rose to power in 1834 in objection to President Andrew Jackson’s populist ideals and outright usurpation of congressional powers, after “King Andrew the First,” as the president became known to the Whigs, refused to fund the second National Bank. While the Jacksonian Democrats attempted to pigeonhole the Whigs as wealthy Northern elites bent on sidestepping the will of the people, Whig party members comprised a coalition of northern and southern politicians, who railed against Jackson’s forced relocation of Native Americans, at the same time dodging as best they could the escalating issue of slavery within the ever-expanding United States. Some of the party’s most influential pre-Civil War leaders included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, John Quincy Adams and one-term Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln.
During its 20-year existence, the Whig Party remained staunchly critical of westward expansion under the banner of manifest destiny, sending William Henry Harrison to the White House after the presidential election of 1840, who subsequently died of pneumonia just 32 days after taking office. After Whig presidential candidate Henry Clay lost to Democrat James Polk in the presidential election of 1844, Whig candidate and Mexican-American war hero Zachary Taylor again took the White House in the election of 1848, while his death two years later from a gastro-intestinal illness did much to derail the forward momentum of the party.
When the divisive issue of slavery came to a head in the 1850s, including the wildly unpopular Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Whig party collapsed just as abruptly as its meteoric rise to power. With northern and southern legislators hopelessly deadlocked over the issue of slavery, prominent Whigs such as Thaddeus Stevens, William Seward and Abraham Lincoln switched to the newly-formed Republican party, while conservative anti-immigrant, nativist proponents within the failing Whig party followed Millard Fillmore to the Know Nothing party, leading William Seward to deliver the Whig’s eulogy in 1855, when he stated, “Let, then, the Whig party pass. It committed a grievous fault, and grievously hath it answered it. Let it march out of the field, therefore, with all the honors,” making the Whig party, a brief yet bygone era in early American politics.
And there you have it, the rise and fall of the Whig party, today on The Daily Dose.
12:01
Britain's Weird, Small Political Parties Explained - TLDR News
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII
JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/cha...
published: 04 May 2021
Britain's Weird, Small Political Parties Explained - TLDR News
Britain's Weird, Small Political Parties Explained - TLDR News
- Report rights infringement
- published: 04 May 2021
- views: 350887
Fully Inspired by: https://youtu.be/2xReHLbRJII
JJ McCullough: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhOl6uRlxryALlT5yifldw
Scottish Elections: https://youtu.be/pmJiOtgEDYQ
Welsh Elections: https://youtu.be/kPdDCvazzFA
London Mayoral Elections: https://youtu.be/nxdkRw_RNRI
Police & Crime Commissioner Elections: https://youtu.be/WHlB-Ip6AcI
As Britain heads into election season (if you didn't know a bunch of elections are taking place on May 6th) we thought we should take a look at the parties which don't normally attract attention. So in this video, we look at Britain's fringe parties, the ones who have no real shot at winning but for some reason still take part.
Ft: The Yorkshire Party, UKIP, The Liberal Party, Aontu, the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Christian Peoples Alliance
Follow TLDR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tldrnewsuk
Discord: https://discord.gg/NH65VUpw9N
TLDR Store: https://tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: https://teespring.com/stores/tldr-summer-2020
Support TLDR on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: https://tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
2:15
The Whig and Tory Parties| Whigs and Tories
Hi friends,
I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", w...
published: 01 Jun 2020
The Whig and Tory Parties| Whigs and Tories
The Whig and Tory Parties| Whigs and Tories
- Report rights infringement
- published: 01 Jun 2020
- views: 17412
Hi friends,
I am Vinay S. Pendse, welcome to my educational channel "Literature Guide", which is created in collaboration with Dr. Archana Bobade, HOD (English), Shri Shivaji Arts and Commerce College, Amravati, regarding English literature and criticism. The channel 'Literature Guide" is designed for the people who want to expand their horizon of knowledge of English Literature and it will be helpful for the students of literature as well as people.
This video is about the emergence of the Whig and Tory parties in England. In the reign of William and Mary, two chief parties - the Whig and the Tory dominated the political arena. These two derogatory terms for the two parties were employed in Charles II's reign. It was used for those people who disliked James Stuart and they wanted to keep him away from the throne because he favoured the Catholics.
This is a short video like all my videos but it will be a great support for the students to understand the origin and role of these parties and their alliance to a few literary writers.
8:11
A Brief History of the Whig Party
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com
Here's the story of the rise ...
published: 03 Jan 2014
A Brief History of the Whig Party
A Brief History of the Whig Party
- Report rights infringement
- published: 03 Jan 2014
- views: 262827
Music by Electric Needle Room. http://electricneedleroom.com
Here's the story of the rise and the fall (and the rise again) of the Whig Party.
Please subscribe to my podcast! http://iammrbeat.podomatic.com
All images in the public domain.
For collaborations and business inquiries, please contact via Channel Pages: http://ChannelPages.com/iammrbeat
3:43
Going the Way of the Whigs | Casual Historian
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs?
The British History of...
published: 20 Jun 2016
Going the Way of the Whigs | Casual Historian
Going the Way of the Whigs | Casual Historian
- Report rights infringement
- published: 20 Jun 2016
- views: 32394
Is the Republican Party going to meet the same fate as the Whigs?
The British History of Westeros: https://youtu.be/UfCTkB6qhUI
Are We Overpopulated?: https://youtu.be/ZRB8173LwJA
https://www.youtube.com/user/grantghurst
https://twitter.com/GrantGHurst
https://www.facebook.com/GrantGHurst/
4:12
The Whig Party on BBC Daily Politics 9 Dec 14
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broa...
published: 13 Dec 2014
The Whig Party on BBC Daily Politics 9 Dec 14
The Whig Party on BBC Daily Politics 9 Dec 14
- Report rights infringement
- published: 13 Dec 2014
- views: 6950
Interview with Waleed Ghani, leader of the Whig Party, on BBC Two's 'Daily Politics'. Broadcast 9 December 2014. Interviewer Jo Coburn.
Whig Party (United States)
The Whig Party was a political party active in the middle of the 19th century in the United States. Three Presidents were current members of the Party. Along with the rival Democratic Party, it was central to the Second Party System from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s. It originally formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson (in office 1829–37) and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization, banking and economic protectionism to stimulate manufacturing. It appealed to entrepreneurs and planters, but had little appeal to farmers or unskilled workers. It included many active Protestants, and voiced a moralistic opposition to the Jacksonian Indian removal policies. The "Whig" name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence. "Whig" meant opposing tyranny. Historian Frank Towers has specified a deep ideological divide:
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia - https://wn.com/Whig_Party_(United_States)
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
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Ca...
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Ca...
United States v White (1971)...
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSDa...
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Expla...
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Cas...
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Ca...
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Ca...
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Exp...
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Ca...
Latest News for: u.s. whig party
Edit
Here comes the GOP's Santa scam again
... Journal in 1974, after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs.
Edit
Iowa moderates should run independent campaigns, puncture polarized politics | Opinion
Edit
Detroit's mayor wants to be Michigan's governor. Here's what to know about Mike Duggan
Edit
Secret recounts, tragic fire: The last time Michigan Democrats had a lame-duck trifecta
Edit
EDITORIAL: Dissatisfaction with two major parties is an American tradition
Dissatisfaction with two major parties is an American tradition. Since the demise of the Whigs and the rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s, American politics has largely been a slugfest between the GOP and the Democratic Party.
Edit
Thanksgiving in Alabama: 'Yankee' holiday didn't catch on until after Civil War
5 tips for a great Thanksgiving dinner. 5 tips for a great Thanksgiving dinner 2023. On Nov ... 28 ... 8 ... According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama, Patton, a Virginia native and originally a member of the Whig Party, was a former Alabama lawmaker 1837 to 1861.
Edit
What links Catching Fire, Lucky and The Moonstone? The Saturday quiz
Which 1999 release had the longest constant shoot in film history?. The Republican and True Whig parties were rivals in which African country?. What cooker was invented by Fred van der Weij in 2006? ... Liberia. Air fryer ... Constituencies of UK party leaders.
Edit
Rooks: For Democrats, it’s all about the workers
For the Democratic Party has become ... Republicans, and before them the Whigs, have always been the party of business – representing capital, corporations, billionaires, take whatever example you want.
Edit
Our Current Political Mess – Part Three
Moreover, the Whigs, who had started as a party in opposition to the executive, now found themselves in power ... the new Hanoverian monarchs, leading to the Whig ascendancy under George I and George II.
Edit
Jim Nowlan: This is an obvious time for a Centrist Party in America
Edit
This is an obvious time for a centrist party in America
In 1854, in Ripon, Wisconsin; Jackson, Michigan; and Aurora, Illinois, a new, rather centrist Republican Party emerged to oppose the extension of slavery to the North, replacing a Whig Party divided on the issue.
Edit
Professing Faith: We have had a few bad presidents
... split the Democratic party and infuriated Republicans ... The leadership of the Whig party persuaded him to run for the presidency in 1850 with New York politician Millard Fillmore as his running mate.
Edit
Chicago Tribune
06 Nov 2024
Who Illinois voters have chosen for president since 1824
Chicago Tribune
06 Nov 2024
He could also become the first Republican in two decades to win the popular vote ... Note ... Whig Party candidates lost the popular vote in Illinois from 1836-1852. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in 1912 ... Sources ... Elections ... .
Edit
Is Donald Trump the first U.S. president to serve a split term? No, but it's a small club
Asked in 1888 why he lost his bid for reelection, Cleveland said dryly, "“It was mainly because the other party had the most votes.” ... Millard Fillmore, a Whig (1850 to 1853), ran with the Native American party (the "Know Nothings") in 1856.
Edit
ByGone Muncie: Muncie’s Mugwump municipal election of 1891
Two hundred years ago, the heated national elections between 1824 and 1832 realigned America’s politics between Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party and Henry Clay’s Whig Party ... Muncie’s mugwumps then made a shrewd deal with the city’s Democratic Party.
- 1
- 2
- Next page »