Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). While practicing driving with the driving instructor, Veenstra ran into James Stevens (plaintiff), causing injury. Under Louisiana law, all … Before the driver's education course, Veenstra had never driven an automobile on a public road in a developed area. David H. Souter Souter. EEOC v. THE PARKER GROUP, INC - Order [Dismissing Case] Page 1. 302 (1973). Cancel anytime. Homes For Sale In St Marys County, Md,
Miranda, requires … has been addressed by several of the Florida district courts of appeal.”); The Florida Supreme Court agreed. We disagree. Antonin Scalia Scalia. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. We do not retain jurisdiction. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Amended February 1, 1981, June 1998. Wisti Jaaskelainen, P.C. Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the right to bear arms was subject to reasonable … 187319. With a massive and growing library of case briefs, video lessons, practice exams, and multiple-choice questions, Quimbee helps its members achieve academic success in law school. We agree. Sandra Day O'Connor O'Connor. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 248, 254-255; 446 N.W.2d 873 (1989). The procedural disposition (e.g. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Stephen G. Breyer Breyer. 598 S.W.2d 469 (1980) Summers v. Tice. Stevens appealed, arguing that the trial court’s jury instructions were improper because a minor engaging in a dangerous adult activity, such as driving, should be charged with the adult standard of care. And if you go Premium, you’ll receive Quimbee’s Outline on Legal Ethics as part of our ... Justice John Paul Stevens dissented to assert that neither the text nor the legislative history of the Second Amendment indicated an intention to guarantee the right to bear arms outside the militia. CALUMET PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LC No. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit [June 19, 1995] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Get Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659 (2000), Indiana Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. This case demonstrates how a court may decide which activities are amenable to reduced standards of care. 1) Does the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker allow courts to accord a presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Co. v. Dude | NEIL GORSUCH PROJECT - Library. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. What is Stevens v. Veenstra about? briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Alito. Mary Benedict’s email address is b***@central.edu . Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, with a short concurrence by John Paul Stevens. Beginners v. Experts a. Stevens v. Veenstra: The use of a lower standard of care for beginners encourages them to undertake activities that they might not otherwise attempt. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines, where they allow judges to enhance sentences using facts not reviewed by juries, violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. What is Mary Benedict’s email address?
Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of … We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. What company does Mary Benedict work for? Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Clarence Thomas Thomas. (by Joon H. Sung and Mark A. Wisti), for the plaintiff. A video case brief of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010). Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg. There is no error requiring reversal if the theories and applicable law were adequately and fairly presented to the jury. sign out sign in. Plaintiff appeals as of right from a jury verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. 441, 123 Ed. A Summary And Case Brief Of Greenberg v. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Get Stevens v. Casdorph, 508 S.E.2d 610 (1998), Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. PDF United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. Case 2:98-cv-01045-IPJ Document 26 Filed 07/26/1999 Page 1 of 1. Proces otrzymywania próżni ; Sous Vide ; Czujnik punktu wrzenia ; Zaawansowane sterowanie ; Dwustronne zgrzewanie No. "Some activities are so. § 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements. 93-008695-NI. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A., PETITIONER v. M/V SKY REEFER, HER ENGINES, etc., et al. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. The independent counsel could terminate the position when the investigation and/or prosecution was complete. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. 08-651 . Court maintained that some activities are so dangerous that the risk must be borne by the beginner rather than the innocent victims, and lack of confidence is no excuse. The operation could not be completed. The adult standard of care applies even if the minor is a student driver. Plaintiff argued below and argues on appeal that this black-letter law applies to this case and that, although Veenstra was a minor, because he was engaged in the adult activity of driving an automobile, he should be held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. Stevens brought a negligence suit against Veenstra. John Paul Stevens Stevens. See, e. g., n. 13, supra. Veenstra was engaged in the adult activity of driving an automobile, and we do not consider the reasons behind his undertaking the activity to justify departure from the general rule that all drivers, even minors, are held to an adult standard of care. Issues of race often expose deep ideological divisions within the Roberts Court. While practicing driving with the driving instructor, Veenstra ran into James Stevens (plaintiff), causing injury. 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. Defendant, and. On the first day of the driving portion of the class, Veenstra stopped the automobile he was driving at an intersection. 1× 1. ... Stevens v. Veenstra. EDIT CASE INFORMATION DELETE CASE.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. As a result, Veenstra's automobile struck plaintiff. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. I: Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional … Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. JAMES STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v . Get Brewer v. In its impact on the illegitimate children excluded from their parents' estates, the statute was significantly different. See also Osner v Boughner, 180 Mich App 248; 446 NW2d 873 (1989). Hertz Corp 421 F2d 1169 2d Cir 1970 p 396 23 Stevens v Veenstra 573 NW2d 341 from LAW 522 at University of Hawaii, Manoa See 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 299, comment d, pp 71-72. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of public employees. In denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the trial court stated that, although driving an automobile is an adult activity, "[d]riving a motor vehicle as a student driver under the supervision of a driver's training teacher during the course of a school driver's training program" is not an adult activity. 3553(a) factors that might justify a lesser sentence? Anthony M. Kennedy Kennedy. 2) If so, may a court presume a within- Guidelines sentence reasonable without an explicit analysis of the 18 U.S.C. What does Levey v. DeNardo have to do with "emergency doctrine?" SCOTT VEENSTRA, as Next Friend of AARON S. VEENSTRA, Defendant/Cross Defendant- Appellee, and. Antonin Scalia Scalia. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . 312, 320
STEVENS , J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. While driving under the supervision of a driving instructor, defendant accidentally veered towards the plaintiff, panicked, possibly hit the accelerator by accident, and struck the plaintiff. What did the court rule? You're using an unsupported browser. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that “a search and seizure equivalent a compulsory production of a man's private papers” and that the search was “an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Boyd v. United States Supreme Court of the … We agree. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Cancel anytime. At trial, over plaintiff's objection, the trial court gave the following instruction: Utilizing this instruction, the jury found that Veenstra was not negligent. WADE CHEVROLET-OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC, … … Stevens filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 48 violated the First Amendment. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Source. In a separate 5-4 opinion … Moreover, Defendants argued that the sequestration procedures were inconsistent with the Sniadach cases (see Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. Plaintiff argued below and argues on appeal that this black-letter law applies to this case and that, although Veenstra was a minor, because he was engaged in the adult activity of driving an automobile, he should be held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. If a lesser standard of care is to be applied to minors in Veenstra's circumstance, it should be imposed by the Legislature. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above
and Id., at 57 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Id. Aaron Veenstra (defendant), a 14-year-old, took a driver’s education class. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy: Concurrence: White, joined by Rehnquist: Concurrence: Blackmun: Concurrence: Kennedy: Concurrence: Scalia (in the judgment) Laws applied; U.S. Const. We reverse and remand. 573 N.W.2d 341 226 Mich.App. Get Helling v. Carey, 519 P.2d 981 (1974), Supreme Court of Washington, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series ™:. Shelby Cty. History M Civ JI 10.02 is a revision of SJI 10.01 and SJI 10.02. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case denied, 488 U.S. 916 (1988). No. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. Read more about Quimbee. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. The determination whether an instruction is accurate and applicable to a case rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. While driving under the supervision of a driving instructor, defendant accidentally veered towards the plaintiff, panicked, possibly hit the accelerator by accident, and struck the plaintiff. The phrase has the unfortunate connotation of a standard laden with subjective assessments. No. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Stevens v. Veenstra. When the traffic cleared, Veenstra made a right turn. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce998 S.W.2d 605, 15 IER Cases 509 (Tex. Vague laws force potential speakers to “ ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone’ … than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.” Baggett v. Bullitt , 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964) (quoting Speiser v. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.
and Id., at 57 (White, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). 24, 27; 555 N.W.2d 709 (1996). Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. “certain procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their … John Paul Stevens Stevens. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from Law Rep. 909 James STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Calumet Public Schools, Defendant, and Scott VEENSTRA, as Next Friend of Aaron S. Veenstra, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee, and Wade Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Defendant/Cross Plaintiff. The Court of Chancery found for Plaintiff and the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery. 385 (1853) T. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. STEVENS v. CALUMET PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al. The barge broke free of the mooring lines due to this readjustment. 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. In Blakely v.Washington (2004) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury required judges to use only facts proved to a jury to increase a sentence beyond the standard range.. No contracts or commitments. amend. Justice Ginsburg was biting in her proclamation that “[h]ubris is a fit word” for the Court’s invalidation of section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. (by William R. Smith), for the defendant. M/V Wesermunde, 838 F. 2d 1576 (CA11) (declining to enforce foreign arbitration clause because that would violate COGSA), cert. Playlists Annotated Items Cases Texts Images Audio PDFs Videos Links Users H2O. Issues of race often expose deep ideological divisions within the Roberts Court. Greenberg v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. Case Brief - Quimbee. Source. Stevens filed suit under the False Calms Act (FCA), which provides for a private person to bring a qui … Stephen G. Breyer Breyer. This video is on United States v Stevens which dealt with a law banning animal cruelty videos. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you update your browser. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg. Stevens v. Casdorph. Shelby Cty. In this case, the instruction read by the trial court was not applicable. The trial court instructed the jury to hold Veenstra to the standard of care for a reasonably careful minor of the same age, intelligence, and experience as Veenstra. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), decided on February 24, 1987, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court decided whether a foreign corporation, by merely being aware that its products could end up in the forum state and into the American "stream of commerce" which later caused injuries, satisfied the minimum contact necessary … We believe that driving an automobile is such an activity, and that anyone driving an automobile, regardless of age, must be held to the same standard of competence and conduct. Essentially Justice Stevens feels that adhesion contracts, particularly forum-selection clauses, are void as contrary to public policy if they were not freely bargained for, create additional expense for one party, or deny one party a remedy. Veenstra had skipped four grades in elementary school and graduated from high school early. change. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Houghton Circuit Court. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , 521 U. S. 844, 871–872 (1997) . One rationale behind holding a minor driving an automobile to an adult standard of conduct is that, because of the frequency and sometimes catastrophic results of automobile accidents, it would be unfair to the public to permit a minor operating an automobile to observe any standard of care other than that expected of all others operating automobiles. Citation. Homer Haskell executed a will at bank, but not in the presence of two witnesses who did not witness him signing or acknowledging his will. However, Michigan "has a longstanding policy of holding all drivers, even minors, to an adult standard of care." The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex. Kendricks Bordeau, P.C. Choose Your Subscription: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year)--OR-- Mary Benedict’s role in Central College is Director, Annual Giving . Ruled against 14-year-old in driver's ed. We find no authority in these statutes to apply a lesser standard of care to those seeking to satisfy the statutory qualifications and are not persuaded that the policy behind the rule applying an adult standard of care to minors driving automobiles should be set aside under these circumstances. 1) Does the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker allow courts to accord a presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Antonin Scalia Scalia. RepScore reflects the overall reputation rank (from 0 to 100%) for a given company, brand, or website, calculated automatically by our proprietary formula Following U.S. Anthony M. Kennedy Kennedy. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 2648 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Jury … Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. The determination whether an instruction is accurate and applicable to a case rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. English courts upheld the standard again nearly 20 years later in Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works , [16] holding: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Planned Parenthood of SE PA v. Casey (1992) STUDY. See Fire Ins Exchange v Diehl, 206 Mich. App. 187319. 1× 1. 248, 254-255; 446 N.W.2d 873 (1989). The Court held unanimously in favor of a schoolteacher fired for her critical remarks in conversations with her principal. Quimbee. If not, you may need to refresh the page. A video case brief of United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). Veenstra argued that because he was driving during a driver’s education course, a minor-specific program, he should not be charged with the standard of care for an adult activity. Cbs, Inc.'s Reputation Score Is 100%, Which Is Excellent. v. Holder, … Decided: November 18, 1997 Before MURPHY, P.J., and HOOD and BANDSTRA, JJ. In other words, some activities are so dangerous that the risk must be borne by the beginner rather than the innocent victims, and lack of competence is no excuse. Robert Stevens was arrested for having and selling dog … SEARCH: CREATE: Playlist Annotated Item Text PDF. CitationStevens v. Casdorph, 203 W. Va. 450, 508 S.E.2d 610, 1998 W. Va. LEXIS 146 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 1998) Brief Fact Summary. The parties devote much of their argument to the question whether COGSA or the FAA has priority. Justice Stevens dissented, in which he was joined by Justice Marshall. Get Finn v. Williams, 33 N.E.2d 226 (Ill. 1941), Supreme Court of Illinois, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, concurring in part, concurring in the result in part, and dissenting in part. If defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel, they may be able to get their convictions overturned. Girouard v. State Case Brief - Rule of Law: Words alone-that is, unaccompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm-cannot. While we concede that Veenstra was attempting to satisfy requirements placed only upon minors, we do not think that changes the nature of, or danger associated with, driving an automobile. Id. Stevens v. Veenstra Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained von Quimbee vor 1 Monat 2 Minuten, 6 Sekunden 48 Aufrufe Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. With a massive and growing library of case briefs, video lessons, practice exams, and multiple-choice questions, Quimbee helps its members achieve academic success in law school. Justice Ginsburg was biting in her proclamation that “[h]ubris is a fit word” for the Court’s invalidation of section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. The Illinois statute can be distinguished in several respects from the Louisiana statute in Labine. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Quimbee … 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969). See Eskra v. Morton, 524 F.2d, at 12-14 (Stevens, J.). § 257.811(6); M.S.A.
You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Both Veenstra and the driving instructor attempted to turn Veenstra's automobile away from plaintiff. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the trial court's instruction was improper and mandates reversal. Veenstra argues that, because he was participating in a minor-oriented driver training program, he was not engaged in an adult activity and attempts to bolster this argument by referring to M.C.L. 1976) The T.J. Hooper. A minor who engages in an adult activity that is dangerous, e.g., driving an automobile, is charged with the same standard of conduct as an adult. Justice David H. Souter delivered the Court's 6-3 opinion that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's "text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal … As a result, the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider the degree of care that a reasonably careful minor of the same age, mental capacity, and experience as Veenstra would use under the circumstances. 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Choose Your Subscription: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year)--OR-- No contracts or commitments. The licensing statutes cited by Veenstra are important in determining the qualifications required to drive an automobile, see 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 283A, comment c, p 16, and assuring a minimum level of driver competence. Padilla won his case in the Kentucky Appellate Court, but the Commonwealth requested the Kentucky Supreme Court hear the case on discretionary review. On her lawyer's advice, Romero refused to take a similar test, perhaps in part because the reliability of such tests was suspect. The trial court instructed the jury to hold Veenstra to the standard of care for a reasonably careful minor of the same age, intelligence, and experience as Veenstra. Homes For Sale In St Marys County, Md,
Miranda, requires … has been addressed by several of the Florida district courts of appeal.”); The Florida Supreme Court agreed. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. The passenger was struck and killed by the pursuing police car. Clarence Thomas Thomas. Stephen G. Breyer Breyer. November 18, 1997 No. Jonathan Stevens, a former attorney for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, filed suit against his former employer, the agency, alleging that it had submitted false claims to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to induce the EPA to disburse more grant money than it was entitled to receive. 187319 . Vol. Veenstra testified that as he was heading for plaintiff, he may have hit the accelerator instead of the brake. Veenstra argues that, because he was participating in a minor-oriented driver training program, he was not engaged in an adult activity and attempts to bolster this argument by referring to MCL 257.811(6); MSA 9.2511(6), which states that an operator's license shall not be issued to a person under eighteen years of age unless that person passes a driver's education course. The trial court admitted the will to probate finding that the will substantially complied with the statute while the Circuit … This website requires JavaScript. Show More. 1999) Homer v. Long; Grube v. Pacific Union R.R256 Kan. 519, 886 P.2d 845 (1994) Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center850 P.2d 1179 (Utah 1992) Sacco v. High Country Independent Press271 Mont. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg. No, yes. 248, 254-255; 446 N.W.2d 873 (1989). Planned Parenthood v. What is … 2) If so, may a court presume a within- Guidelines sentence reasonable without an explicit analysis of the 18 U.S.C. Then click here. 1948) Surocco v. Geary. The sentences of Booker and Fanfan, based partly on facts determined only by judges, were therefore unconstitutional. SJI2d 10.03 titled "Ordinary Care — Adult — Definition" provides: Veenstra also cites the related statute MCL 257.303(1)(a); MSA 9.2003(1)(a). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Sandra Day O'Connor O'Connor. dangerous that the risk must be borne by the beginner rather than the innocent victims, and lack of competence is no excuse" i. Beginners are held to the standard of care expected of those who are … "[W]hen two statutes are capable of co existence," however, "it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed … We now affirm. 209, 52 State Rptr. Justice David H. Souter delivered the Court's 6-3 opinion that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's "text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one." In essence, Veenstra defines the activity he was involved in as not simply driving an automobile, but driving an automobile as part of a driver's education course to satisfy the legislative requirements placed upon those under eighteen years of age seeking to obtain an operator's license, and claims that because he was engaged in an activity, which by definition is limited to minors, he was not engaged in an adult activity and should not be held to an adult standard of conduct. Veenstra and the trial court consider this case to be distinguishable from prior cases holding that minors driving automobiles are held to an adult standard of conduct and call for an exception to that rule. 654 A.2d 535 (1995) Stinnett v. Buchele. STEVENS v. VEENSTRA Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. See Eskra v. Morton, 524 F.2d, at 12-14 (Stevens, J.). Splitting 5 to 4, the Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit, answering that "proceeds" refers to "net income" or profits and not to "gross income." He was taking driver's education so that he would have transportation to college.