Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

When bites are worse than barks; courts differ on when use of police dogs constitutes unreasonable force

Article Abstract:

Many civil actions alleging brutality or excessive force have been filed against police dog units, not surprising since many departments train dogs to follow the 'bite and hold' policy, the bites cause wounds in suspects which send them to hospitals rather than prison. Courts have been uncertain about what theory to use with dog bite claims. Some have used the Fourth Amendment standard of unreasonable search and seizure, but most have focused on the issue of whether it was reasonable to let the dogs loose at all. Cases analyzes include Mendoza v. Block and Tennessee v. Garner.

Author: Savage, David G.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1996
Usage, Laws, regulations and rules, Searches and seizures, Police, Complaints (Civil procedure), Police misconduct, Police dogs

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Getting the high court's attention; liberal-leaning 9th Circuit often reversed

Article Abstract:

The largest of the 12 regional circuit courts is the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. At 9 states, the court covers nearly one-fifth of the country's population. During its 1997-98 term, the US Supreme Court reversed all but one of the 9th Circuit's rulings. Of these reversals, six were summary ones not even considered worthy of briefing and oral argument. The court's ideological fame has spurred a Republican drive to separate their states from it.

Author: Savage, David G.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
Evaluation, United States. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


First amendment in your face: aggressive demonstrations are no more than free speech in action

Article Abstract:

The Supreme Court has ruled that aggressive demonstrations at an abortion clinic are free speech actions protected by the First Amendment, cutting down some of the restrictions on protestors. In Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, the Court overturned a moving buffer zone around clinic visitors giving them 15 feet of clearance. However, the 15-foot clear zone protecting clinic entrances was maintained by the Court.

Author: Savage, David G.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
Health and allied services, not elsewhere classified, Family Planning, Family Planning Centers, Cases, Freedom of speech, Pro-life movement, Demonstrations, Family planning services

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: What to wear: courts agree on principle of school dress codes, disagree on their reach. Number, please; ABA explores nationwide lawyer identification system
  • Abstracts: Statistical analysis enables firms to set flat fees; cost-component calculus, widely used to price services, facilitates matter-based billing by lawyers
  • Abstracts: Software as "machine DNA": arguments for patenting useful computer disks per se. Computer software "article of manufacture" patents
  • Abstracts: Searching beyond data bases; law librarians can offer firms services over and above their skills in computer resources
  • Abstracts: Companies still grapple with safe-harbor issues; corporations should remain wary of making predictions despite Reform Act protection
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.