The search query in the present case is if the last wishes of Joanna Spring can be fulfilled, particularly in view of the fact that her husband is not willing to acknowledge these wishes. On the other hand, the parents of Joanna believe that Bill Spring is interested in keeping Joanna alive due to the reason that there is a clause according to which Bill will not be able to inherit Joana's estate unless he's been married to Joanna for two years. As the first searches were not successful, the legal issue had to be redefined.
A living will allows a person to put into writing division is also a person regarding medical treatment for the end of life of such a person in case the person is not capable of communicating these which is directly. This document has been given different names in different States. However, regardless of the name of such a document, the purpose of this document is to guide the family and the doctors in making a decision regarding the use of medical treatment for the person at the end of life (Leahman, 2004). There are several cases in which the legal right provided by the Constitution to accept or refuse treatment has been acknowledged. It needs to be noted in this regard that there are certain events in case of which, the current last will of a person automatically changes. These events are managed, divorced and having children. Therefore, keeping in view this position of law, it can be said that the previous requests regarding final wishes also change after marriage. In this regard, it is also important to act in the best interest of the patient. Winters can appeal the decision on the ground that Joanna should be allowed to die in piece and should not be made to wait for two years so that Bill can inherit her estate.
The search query in this case is if the medical prescription received by Shirley Baker in California is valid in Oklahoma or not. The first searches were successful in this case. Shirley had a medical prescription for marijuana in California but she decided to move to Oklahoma. However she was rested in Oklahoma for smoking marijuana. Therefore the question arises if California's prescription law can also be considered as applicable in Oklahoma. In order to decide this question first of all it needs to be decided if medical marijuana is recognized in Oklahoma. It needs to be noted in this regard that Oklahoma does not recognize medical marijuana. Therefore while going to other states, medical marijuana patients may face difficulties because there are many states that do not allow bringing their medical marijuana. As a result, if medical marijuana laws are not applicable in a particular State, the person can be arrested under possession laws. The situation remains the same even if the patient has been registered in his or her home State. On the basis of this discussion, it can be said that in the present case, California's prescription law is not applicable in Oklahoma because medical marijuana is not recognized in Oklahoma.
The search query in the present case is if the same sex marriage between Joe Valle and Fred Hamper can be considered as valid in Georgia. In this case also the first searches were successful. In this regard, the Constitution of George clearly mentions in Article I Section IV that marriage shall be recognized only as the union of man and woman. Therefore, is that takes place between the persons of same sex are prohibited in Georgia. It has also been mentioned that the union between the persons of same sex shall not be recognized by Georgia as being entitled for the benefits of marriage. In this regard it has further been mentioned that your gesture not give effect to any public act, record or proceeding of any other State regarding the relationship between the persons of same that is considered as a managed under the laws of such State. Similarly, it has also been mentioned that the courts of Georgia will have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance regarding any such relationship. On the basis of discussion, it can be clearly stated that the trial court appears to be correct when it gave its decision in favor of Big Time Insurance Company.
The search query in this case is if the search conducted by the police officer is valid or not. The first searches were successful and relevant results were obtained. The most relevant result was the case of Horton v. California. In this regard, it can be claimed by Flora that the search conducted by the police officer had violated the ban imposed by the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures (United States v. Gray). However, it is not likely that Flora will be successful in this plea. The reason is that the police officer had visited the place in order to investigate another kind that has taken place in a nearby house. As a result, it can be said that the police officer was lawfully present there and the plants were in plain view (Cervantes, 2001). As a result, the police officer saw the plants. In this regard the doctrine of plain view that was propounded by the court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), an item can be seized by the police officer that is in plain view and the criminal nature of that particular item is apparent immediately. The only requirement prescribed in this regard is that the officer should be lawfully present in the place where he saw the item (Minnesota v. Dickerson). As a result, in the present case is the police officer was capable of immediately telling that the item was probably marijuana and the plants could have been seen by the officer in plain view, it is likely that the search and seizure made by such officer will stand upon in an appeal preferred by Flora.
The search query in the present case is if Mr. Incense has received inefficient assistance from his counsel. In this case also the first searches were successful and therefore there was no need to redefine the legal question. In Strickland v Washington, the United States Supreme Court provided the test that can be used for deciding ineffective assistance of the Counsel (Rigg, 2007). Therefore, for the purpose of establishing ineffective assistance of the counsel, it is required that Mr. Incense should establish that the performance of the autonomy was below the performance required by an objective standard of reasonableness used in the legal profession (McKay, 2013). At the same time, Mr. Incense is also required to establish that he had suffered a prejudice due to the inefficient counsel. In order to prove this prejudice, it is required that Mr. Incense should show that if these deficiencies would not have been present on part of his counsel, he would have received a different outcome (Kastenberg, 2013).
Casey Scott McKay, (2013) Constitutional Law-the Plea-Bargaining Process-Mr. Counsel, Please Bargain Effectively for Your Client's Sixth Amendment Rights, Otherwise the Trial Court Will Be Forced to Reoffer the Plea Deal and Then Exercise Discretion in Resentencing, 82 Miss. L.J. 731
Cervantes, Jorge (2001). Indoor Marijuana Horticulture. Van Patten Publishing
Kastenberg, Joshua E, (2013) "Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel," Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 14 J. App. Prac. & Proc 215
Leahman D (2004). "Why the Patient Self-Determination Act has failed". N C Med J 65 (4): 249–51.
Rigg, Robert R. (2007). "The T-Rex without Teeth: Evolving Strickland v. Washington and the Test for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel". Pepperdine Law Review 35 (1): 77–105.
Yates JL, Glick HR (1997). "The failed Patient Self-Determination Act and policy alternatives for the right to die". J Aging Soc Policy 9 (4): 29–50
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
United States v. Gray, 78 F. Supp. 2d 524
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993)