ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) 379 U.S. 241 In the Court of: U.S. Supreme Court Argued on: October 5, 1964 Decided on: December 14, 1964. Facts Reasons for the Lawsuit: The appellant is the owner of a large motel (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc.) in Atlanta, Georgia who restricts his clientele to white people, 75% of whom are inter-state travelers. He has filed a suit to perpetuate his policy of refusing rooms to

Case Brief: In this particular case, Mrs. Gregory, who is in this context the taxpayer, was keen on avoiding double taxation. As the owner of the stocks of United Mortgage Corp., an entity that held some stocks at Monitor Securities Corp, she desired to sell Monitor Securities Corp's securities for a significant profit. However, there was a problem. If done as it should have been done, taxation would occur at two

hotel sent the security guard on duty to check on Gonzalez in his hotel room. The defendant rebuffed to open the door. The security guard heard the sound of breaking glasses and the high television volume. This prompted the hotel to summon Laredo Police Department to assist in carrying out investigations. The hotel staff did not appeal the police to take Gonzalez into custody. In the other case, Michael

trade libel is fair to business owners. Argue both sides of the issue. From the general public's viewpoint, the definition of trade liable is accurate. This is because the store detained someone they accused of shoplifting. To determine where the stolen item was hiding; they effectively conducted a strip search by revealing private areas. At one point, Cockrell (the plaintiff) had to remove a bandage that was use to cover

U.S. v. O'Hagan case Facts In the U.S. v. O'Hagan case, the defendant, James Herman O'Hagan, was a partner in a major Minneapolis firm, and was involved in a corporate acquisition as a representative of the acquiring corporation (Corley, et al., 2002). D allegedly used insider information to purchase stock before the details of the acquisition were made public. History discovered in 1988 that Grand Met PLC, one of his clients, planned to

It is hard to argue with the legitimacy of that consideration. Employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, but that right has limits. Employers are not prevented from conducting some hidden surveillance in an employee's office as long as it is for legitimate business concerns. An employer may have sound reasons for monitoring the workplace and an intrusion upon the employee's reasonable privacy expectations may not be