Answer:
Although defined within the context of a media defendant, the rule requiring proof of actual malice applies to all defendants including individuals. The standard can make it very difficult to prevail in a defamation case, even when allegations made against a public figure are unfair or are proved to be false.
Explanation:
Answer:
Chicken Wing
Explanation:
They are just better in my opinion
Answer:
If you are caught using your phone in class, teachers are legally allowed to take the phone for that class period or even until the end of the day. ... However, a teacher cannot legally look at anything on your phone, that is an invasion of privacy.
Explanation:
That is the legal answer, however whenever a teacher tries to take away your phone, you can simply say "This phone is legally under my parents names, and since they do not go to this school, taking my phone would technically be theft." which was also legally correct.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Answer:
The answer is the President
Explanation:
