Klopfer vs North Carolina In 1967, Peter Klopfer, was an African-American biology professor at the University of Duke in North Carolina. One evening, he was present at a nonviolent sit in; which lead to his arrest later on for trespassing. This incident lead him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13.
In Arizona, relocation of a minor child when there is a written agreement or court order between two parents (both residing in the state of Arizona), is regulated by Arizona Revised Statute 25-408. In most cases, application of this statute’s regulations becomes necessary when one parent wishes to relocate with the minor child out of state. In some cases, such as Thompson v. Thompson, the statute can be cited in relation to relocation within the state of Arizona. A Brief History of the Case: Thompson v. Thompson:
The Hill v. Ohio County involves a wrongful death case in which the hospital refused to admit Juanita Monroe. She thought she was in labor. As a result, she delivered her child at home without medical attention and died shortly after giving birth. The plaintiff was Lorene Hill, administer of Monroe’s estate, against Ohio Country Hospital. The question arises whether there was a breach of duty by the hospital in accordance to the institution’s admission policy.
Describe the case in detail In June 2016, the Adult Protective Service reported a case of elderly abuse to the Lafayette police after a family called them to report that their mother was a victim of abuse. Julie Steenhoek, a 53 years old, was accused of financial abuse to a woman with health problems. The victim was Lavinia Reno, a 79-year-old woman. The police found that Julie was living in the house of the victim after she has gained the victim’s trust.
Analysis of Kelo vs. New London The unpopular Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. New London has broken many citizens trust in having secured property rights. In Kelo vs. New London, the City of New London was condemning the property of several homeowners, in order to sell the land to private developers that would use the land to make a retail condo development. The local government approved the new development in order to gain higher tax revenue and to bring more jobs to the area. Homeowners who believed that their waterfront residence was being unfairly taken contested the City’s actions in court.
Case Analysis: Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada In the following court case between Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, Judges MacPherson, Cronk, and Pardu JJ, at the Ontario Court of Appeal, determine whether to grant accreditation to a private Christian University, that wants to open its own law school. The three-judge panel analyzes the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) decision to not accredit Trinity Western’s proposed law facility, which took place in April 2014. The judges consider the Charter rights at stake, as well as the LSUC’s mandate. The case of TWU v. LSUC will be thoroughly examined, with a specific focus on key concepts that influence law-making, such as social development and change,
Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Myra Bradwell applied for a license in order to practice law in the State of Illinois in which she resided in. She included proof of the qualifications that she possessed in order to be able to practice law and also filed an affidavit which stated that she was born in Vermont but is now a citizen of the U.S. Bradwell’s license was refused because she “as a married woman would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client.” Bradwell didn’t give up there; she then filed a printed argument stating her right to practice law. The court replied to her argument by saying that the privilege that they had of giving licenses
Laurel Oetken BLAW 300, Section 900 Russell 2 February, 2017 Case Brief #1: Riley v. California In Riley v. California, in 2014, David Riley was stopped and pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation. The violation deemed that Riley was driving with expired registration tags on his vehicle. Upon pulling over, the officer learned that Riley’s license had been suspended.
Patrick Majors, 3009 N. Ballas Road, Suite 126A, St. Louis, MO. 63131 (314) 432-3397: On 01/09/14 at approximately 1:30pm I interviewed Dr. Patrick Majors about the complaint made against him by Elizabeth Eckhout. The interview was conducted at Armstrong Teasdale located at 7700 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1800 in Clayton, Missouri. Present at the interview was Sherry Doctorian who was representing Dr. Majors as his legal counsel.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag.
In the United States, the Supreme Court spends the majority of its time on things that are not appointed to them by the Constitution. An example of this would be when the constitutionality of a law is questioned or challenged. The process of Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court sorts out what they think is constitutional and not constitutional. One Supreme Court case that questioned a law’s constitutionality is Baker v. Carr in 1962. Charles Baker, resident of Tennessee, filed a lawsuit against the secretary of state, Joe Carr.
Elizabeth Wicks’ article explores the Supreme Court judgment in Nicklinson and the connotations this has regarding national law and the Human Rights Act 1998. She begins her article by systematically summarising each judges’ judgment and grouping those with similar or the same views. From those who did not declare compatibility, Lords Neuberger, Wilson and Mance, all the way to the two dissenting judges of the case, Lords Hale and Kerr. Wicks’ main focus is on the relationship between the courts and the Parliament including the margin of the appreciation the UK has, namely how the role the Strasbourg court has to play in this and the judicial protection of human rights.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
