This case Tinker v. Des Moines Schools was a very interesting case argued in 1968. A lawsuit was filed against the school after three students, Two of which in high school and one in middle school were suspended from school. The school suspended the students for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam war. Two other students wore armbands, but were in elementary school and weren't suspended. The students were fifteen year old John Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker.
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
The court case of State of Nebraska v. Gary E. Heitman deals with the conviction of Heitman on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a minor. “Heitman contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that he was entrapped” (Heitman p.1) while the court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction” (Heitman p.1) and “further determined that the district court was not clearly wrong in finding that Heitman was predisposed to commit the crime and that thus, the district court was correct in rejecting his entrapment defense.” (Heitman p.1). I agree with the court’s rejection of the entrapment defense based upon things discussed in other entrapment cases and ideas brought up by
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
For my research on how the contextual themes concepts can result in criminal justice malfeasance I selected the case of State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470. This case involved police officer Julian Steele of the Cincinnati, Ohio police department and his indictment on ten counts of police misconduct, including abduction, intimidation, extortion, rape, and sexual battery. Officer Steele abused his legal power to interrogate, arrest and detain a witness by knowingly filing a materially false complaint in order to influence or intimidate a witness; and abducting her minor child from school with the intent of charging the minor child with a robbery felony ” (State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470). Due to the nature of this case and its involvement of the minor children involved, the court documents refer to the subjects by initials only.
Claire Conroy was an 84-year-old patient in a nursing home. She suffered from severe organic brain syndrome, necrotic decubitus ulcers, urinary tract infection, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. She was unable to speak or move, but sometimes able to follow people with her eyes. Nurses were not able to feed her by hand, so a nasogastric tube was inserted to be able to provide nutrition and give all her medications and fluid this route. Her only surviving relative, her nephew and legal guardian, requested the Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey, to allow the nasogastric tube to be removed and thus allow Claire Conroy to die.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
The case of The State v. Justin Ross Harris has received an immense amount of national news attention over the past two years. In June of 2014, Mr. Harris was traveling to work early one morning with his son, Cooper Harris. The father and son stopped by Chick-fil-a for breakfast and Mr. Harris allegedly forgot to drop Cooper off at daycare. Mr. Harris continued traveling to work, missing the turn for daycare, and arrived at work around nine o’clock a.m. that Wednesday morning. He arrived at work and exited his vehicle, leaving his son in his car seat for the entire work day.
The following is a summary of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), including information pertaining to the facts of Hendrick’s criminal history, the procedural history of the cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court decision, and the precedent that has been set for future similar cases. Leroy Hendricks, the subject of this legal matter, is an individual who has exhibited a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviors throughout his lifetime. Hendricks claims that his sexual misconduct first began in 1950 when he was twenty years old and he exposed himself to two females; shortly after in 1957 he received a criminal charge for indecent exposure, for exposing himself to another female victim.
According to Dent v. City of Dallas, the court ruled that police officers performing discretionary duties in good faith and acting within the course and scope of their employment are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The question that is presented in this situation is whether or not the police officer was acting within his course and scope of his employment. As a nation we have endowed our police officers with the right and authority to enforce the laws on whom they choose. Whether or not we reach the realization to this reality however is another story. The police officer has to use his ability on whom to arrest and not arrest responsibly because his actions do affect society.
The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.
I am writing to you to address the Lockhart v. United States case. The issue being tried is, whether or not the mandatory minimum should apply to Lockhart because his previous conviction was of sexual abuse against an adult not a minor or a ward. I choose this case because it is an example of the past affecting the future. In this case Lockhart’s prior crime is affecting how his case is being tried currently. My past has affected my future with every decision I make and things that have happened in my life.
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
The case of R v Caldwell was concerned with the law of recklessness and what equates to recklessness in certain circumstances. The defendant had appealed to the House of Lords for his conviction of aggravated criminal damage, however this conviction was maintained. Arising from this decision, ‘Caldwell recklessness’ was formed. This stated that a person is reckless where property is destroyed or damage where: the appellant partakes in an act which creates an apparent risk of destruction or damage of property, or when the appellant formulates an act in where they have not given any thought to the consequences of their act and has continued with the act regardless.
