# data[].attributes.headline
"The business of America is business," Calvin Coolidge

# data[].attributes.subject
"The business of America is business," Calvin Coolidge

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements of a Statute: Each item, or items, that must be proven to determine whether the party is innocent or guilty.

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements of a Statute: Each item, or items, that must be proven to determine whether the party is innocent or guilty.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements of Case 7, on page 156: Mary must not be a police officer, she must have "carried," and what she "carried" must be a "dangerous weapon."

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements of Case 7, on page 156: Mary must not be a police officer, she must have "carried," and what she "carried" must be a "dangerous weapon."

# data[].attributes.headline
NOTICE: The following items, pursuant to federal criminal statute, are outlawed for interstate shipment which are: "any obscene 'book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print or other matter of indecent character."

# data[].attributes.subject
NOTICE: The following items, pursuant to federal criminal statute, are outlawed for interstate shipment which are: "any obscene 'book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print or other matter of indecent character."

# data[].attributes.headline
Judicial Restraint: The CDs should not be found to be in conflict with this statute, even though there is the catch-all towards the latter part of the statute. This "catch-all" is not enough to satisfy whether or not the legislature meant to include CDs in the list, as seeing them in such a "catch-all" means that the judiciary powers would overstep their bounds and acting as a legislature inserting our beliefs into the law. While leaving out CDs from this "catch-all" effectively means that anti-social behavior can persist, but it should be noted that even with the "catch-all" CDs are distinguishable from the mentioned forms obscene materials can take. Moreover, it is too broad and leaves the mind to suffer the subjective idea whether it is meant to be included or not, which trades radicalism where the level-headedness of the legislative body should prevail.

# data[].attributes.subject
Judicial Restraint: The CDs should not be found to be in conflict with this statute, even though there is the catch-all towards the latter part of the statute. This "catch-all" is not enough to satisfy whether or not the legislature meant to include CDs in the list, as seeing them in such a "catch-all" means that the judiciary powers would overstep their bounds and acting as a legislature inserting our beliefs into the law. While leaving out CDs from this "catch-all" effectively means that anti-social behavior can persist, but it should be noted that even with the "catch-all" CDs are distinguishable from the mentioned forms obscene materials can take. Moreover, it is too broad and leaves the mind to suffer the subjective idea whether it is meant to be included or not, which trades radicalism where the level-headedness of the legislative body should prevail.

# data[].attributes.headline
Judicial activism: The federal statute in question is perfectly valid in prosecuting the accused. This is so that the legislative body does not have to face the needless task of amending the statute each time we face a new material that contains obscenities. Moreover, they allowed for the judiciary to have a large wealth of discretion, giving us the power, or permission, to act just in a similarly reasonable manner as they would have. As a result, this "catch-all" became necessary, and is for our use to show that all obscene materials transported across state lines are subject to the same rule.

# data[].attributes.subject
Judicial activism: The federal statute in question is perfectly valid in prosecuting the accused. This is so that the legislative body does not have to face the needless task of amending the statute each time we face a new material that contains obscenities. Moreover, they allowed for the judiciary to have a large wealth of discretion, giving us the power, or permission, to act just in a similarly reasonable manner as they would have. As a result, this "catch-all" became necessary, and is for our use to show that all obscene materials transported across state lines are subject to the same rule.

# data[].attributes.headline
One more example of what may seem as a legal "abandoned property."

# data[].attributes.subject
One more example of what may seem as a legal "abandoned property."

# data[].attributes.headline
In analyzing the rights between citizens, the right to protect property is not as important as the right to one's life as well as the right to protect life. In Katko v. Briney, it was found that the Defendants did not have a right to protect their property due to the continuing dilapidation of this property. Additionally, there was no way for potential persons who would merely trespass, or break and enter, aware of the spring-loaded shotgun along with it being conspicuously hidden in one of the bedrooms. The use of protecting this "abandoned property" was also moot because there was no occupants in the building, nor an immediate danger to warrant the use of force. As a result, the Plaintiff though breaking the law and stealing antiques of a small monetary value did not deserve the infliction that the Defendants put upon him.

# data[].attributes.subject
In analyzing the rights between citizens, the right to protect property is not as important as the right to one's life as well as the right to protect life. In Katko v. Briney, it was found that the Defendants did not have a right to protect their property due to the continuing dilapidation of this property. Additionally, there was no way for potential persons who would merely trespass, or break and enter, aware of the spring-loaded shotgun along with it being conspicuously hidden in one of the bedrooms. The use of protecting this "abandoned property" was also moot because there was no occupants in the building, nor an immediate danger to warrant the use of force. As a result, the Plaintiff though breaking the law and stealing antiques of a small monetary value did not deserve the infliction that the Defendants put upon him.

# data[].attributes.headline
Larson J., dissenting with the Majority Opinion: "When such a windfall comes to a criminal as a result of his indulgence in serious criminal conduct, the result is intolerable and indeed shocks the conscience. If we find the law upholds such a result, the criminal would be permitted by operation of law to profit from his own crime."

# data[].attributes.subject
Larson J., dissenting with the Majority Opinion: "When such a windfall comes to a criminal as a result of his indulgence in serious criminal conduct, the result is intolerable and indeed shocks the conscience. If we find the law upholds such a result, the criminal would be permitted by operation of law to profit from his own crime."

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to the Dissenting Opinion: I concur with Larson, since the law should have protected neither party. It should have been found to dismiss the case due to the illegal nature of both parties, and making public that if such facts are knowledgeable that items are in property that may be seen as "abandoned property" need only be bought by discussing proper means of payment with the owner of said property. Furthermore, had the Plaintiff not broke the law he would not be injured, showing one that it is always best not to break the law. To allow such a holding in this case gives favor to lawbreakers, who then get hurt when acting in their antisocial behaviors, forcing law-abiding parties suffer for another party's crimes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to the Dissenting Opinion: I concur with Larson, since the law should have protected neither party. It should have been found to dismiss the case due to the illegal nature of both parties, and making public that if such facts are knowledgeable that items are in property that may be seen as "abandoned property" need only be bought by discussing proper means of payment with the owner of said property. Furthermore, had the Plaintiff not broke the law he would not be injured, showing one that it is always best not to break the law. To allow such a holding in this case gives favor to lawbreakers, who then get hurt when acting in their antisocial behaviors, forcing law-abiding parties suffer for another party's crimes.