US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.
1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.
Case Background: In 1994 Christy Brzonkala, a student enrolled at Virginia Tech, alleged to have been raped by two Virginia Tech varsity football players, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. In 1995 Brzonkala filed a complaint under the school’s sexual assault policy against the two football players and Morrison was suspended for two semesters while Crawford got off free. After Morrison was found guilty again at a second hearing, he appealed through the school’s administrative system and his punishment was set aside for being “excessive”. Brzonkala dropped out of the University and sued both Morrison, Crawford and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court alleging that the football player’s attack violated 42 USC Section 13981 of the Violence
The fall of 1994, Christy Brzonkala a Virginia native entered her first year of college at enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech). September of that year, Brzonkala met Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students at Virginia Tech. These two boys, members of the varsity football team, allegedly assaulted and repeatedly raped Christy, within 30 minutes of meeting her. After the attack, Morrison allegedly told Brzonkala, “You better not have any … diseases.” (UNITED STATES V MORRISON).
Case 41 Tenn. 290, 1860 WL (Tenn.) Tally’s Ex’rs v. Smith Year: 1860, September Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee Parties Appellant: HENRY SMITH Respondent: The executors of DUDLEY TALLY, deceased Facts On October 1854, Dudley Tally entered into a Bill of Sale (a contract of sale), selling his property of seven slaves to Henry Smith. Tally was, at the time of sale, deteriorating in physical and mental capacity due to chronic illness and old age. Tally died in December 1854, just two months after the Bill was signed.
Chris Archer V. New Columbia I came to my decision of charging Chris Archer guilty of criminal hazing and not guilty on the count of first-degree murder. During the case the Attorneys definitely keep me assured of my decision. A reason I decided to charge Archer with hazing was because he was the head of a Fraternity and most of the witnesses agreed that there was hazing involved. A reason why I did not charge Mr. Archer with first-degree murder was because no sober person was there to witness the death of Milan.
The United States v. Lopez case was about Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student from San Antonio, who came to school carrying a hidden weapon. Under Texas law he was charged with possession of a firearm. Later on he was dismissed of this violation and was later charged with “federal criminal statute”. He was found violating “ The Gun-Free School Act”, which was created in 1990. His sentence was 6 months in prison and two years of being supervised while being released.
Korematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.
In 1913, E. Latham filed an petition against A. Stewart, a tax- collector of Fulton County to prevent him from collecting license taxes, however Georgia Supreme Court refused his petition to prevent the tax collector and deputy from collecting peddler’s tax claims due to GA. Civ. Cod der Ga. Civ. Code § 946.
After a long debate the Supreme Court unanimously 9-0 decided that Muller was guilty. Because of this case, this lead to better work protection under state law for not only women but children as well. It also fought culture stereotypes of the weaker sex. Muller vs The State of Oregon was related to the labor movement in which women can now feel safer and more protected under the state laws and regulation. With women now planning a more noticeable and important role in factories and laundry mats it was important that their safety and protection is a key point in the working
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.
In the case of the People versus Smith, it struggles with conflicts and balances. The verdict was decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The issue at hand was that the defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, argued that he should be re-sentenced because of the action of the presentence investigation report of his previously expunged juvenile record. The Court of Appeals in Michigan agreed with the defendant and required that Smith is sentenced again. However, The Supreme Court heard the case and reverses the decision stating that Smith did not need to be sentenced again on the basis of the inclusion of his juvenile record alone.
Four prominent law professors launched a formal complaint about this case and his decision back in September. They argue that cases like this often occur behind closed doors and frequently
Vladimir Tarasoff, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. Regents of the University of California, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Decided on July 1 1976 by the California Supreme Court • Type of case Case facts: October 1969, Prosenjit Poddar murdered Tatiana Tarasoff. Tatiana’s parents, said that only a short time ago, Poddar had expressed his intention to carry out the act. They said he had confided to his therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the University of California. They also implied Dr. Moore had warned campus police of Poddar’s intentions.
One of the best rights granted to the individuals in America is the privilege to be viewed as honest until demonstrated blameworthy in the court of law. It is the job of the prosecutor to demonstrate to the on lookers, to the jury, and to the court that the blamed is liable for a wrongdoing. In the event that the prosecutor has a substantial case, the blamed, either on his or her own or joined by an experienced lawyer, can display different defenses to contend why they acted in the manner in which they did. Schmalleger (2010, p. 114) states, “A defense consists of evidence and arguments offered by a defendant and his or her attorney(s) to show why that person should not be held liable for a criminal charge”. In the framework of the Criminal
