The property was rented as-is under common law, and the rallying cry was "buyer beware." In general, landlords can now be held accountable for carelessness when they expose renters to hazardous situations. This is linked to the implied warranty of habitability that landlords are now required to provide.This is a seminal decision that ushered in a trend of state court rulings holding landlords liable for general torts.
The best evidence rule applies where a party attempts to introduce outside evidence to prove what the contents of a document are. In our hypothetical, the patient-plaintiff is trying to prove the contents and meaning of the diagnostic printout instead of using the correct procedure, which is to produce the printout or film and having a qualified professional explain its contents. The patient herself cannot identify or explain the medical content and meaning of diagnostic test documents. The best evidence rule was created to prevent fraud and inaccuracy in evidence.
When it comes to eyewitness testimony, the most important question is whether or not it can be trusted. It may be admitted without violating due process if it is proved to have adequate indicia of credibility. In this case, the circumstances revealed a past identification that was so impermissibly suggestive that there was a very high risk of irreversible misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification is now widely recognized as the major cause of erroneous convictions across the country.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring that searches be conducted with a warrant based on probable cause or under specific exceptions where a warrant is not required.
A traffic stop for speeding is similar to a Terry stop in that it simply requires reasonable suspicion. The fact that the vehicle was pulled over for a suspected traffic violation does not imply that the vehicle was searched. However, probable cause to search a vehicle must be shown separately from the basis for the traffic stop. The officer did not have probable cause to search the vehicle in our example. There was no evidence or indicators that anything criminal was going on, according to the officer. As a result, the search was clearly illegal under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence must be suppressed.
The Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment, prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over others.
All of the aforementioned purposes are material to the case and proper uses of a party admission, and impeachment is allowed for material problems in the case. Because the culprit made the statement, it is not hearsay but rather a party acknowledgment. Out-of-court statements are admissible if they are used against the person who made them.
Cross-examination questions must be related to evidence or information already on the record. Leading inquiries are admissible, but random, non-case-related, or speculative questions are not permitted. Irrelevant, contentious, and speculative queries are likewise inefficient and waste time.
Commercial speech, such as advertising, receives less protection than other forms of speech. It can be subject to government regulations as long as the regulations are narrowly tailored and directly advance a substantial government interest
When a state law treats men and women differently, it will be subject to intermediate scrutiny. This standard requires the government to show that the law is substantially related to an important government interest.
The question is meaningless in terms of determining the witness's credibility or the defendant's guilt. There is no problem with feeding birds or seeing pigeons in this situation. The citations are far too little and irrelevant to call her veracity into question. The issues in the murder case have no bearing on this. It would also be a side issue that would cause the trial's flow to be disrupted for no reason. The question would be an illegal journey into foreign territory that would serve no good purpose
Restatement 345 makes an exception for someone who enters another's territory under a public or private privilege. Under Restatement 198, one has the right to enter to collect chattel that he or she has immediate possession of and that was placed on the land without permission. "A person is entitled to enter or remain on land in the property of another if it is or reasonably appears to be required to avert substantial harm to... the individual, or his land or chattels," as per Restatement 197. The invader would be classified as a licensee in both cases.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The requirement that the government prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt reflects the defendant's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Conversion is the substantial and intentional interference with another person’s right of ownership over his personal property, such as goods or personal chattels. The unauthorized exercising of total control and dominion over it to the exclusion of the owner is the tort of conversion. The burger restaurateur may be able to sue for defamation, interference with business relationships, or a related tort, but not conversion because there was no interference with his ownership rights to personal property. The taking of "business" is not taking or converting personal property, such as goods or chattels.
The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech, allowing individuals to express their opinions and ideas without government censorship or punishment.
