America V. Grey Loon Case Summary

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The Cherokees provided the best example of Native Americans who understood their rights most clearly as they demonstrated in their plight objecting the Cherokee removal and as they exhibited in the construction of a constitution strikingly similar to the United States constitution as well as those of the states, carefully outlining their rights in an organized coherent manner. Consistent with the federal and state constitutions, the Cherokee constitution reflected a profound belief in republicanism, a representative form of government in which those eligible to vote elected individuals to make laws to protect their life, liberty, and property.

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

The first case was Kent v. United States (1966) and it initiated a wave of cases that had the effect of reforming juvenile courts. The case involved Morris Kent, a resident of the District of Columbia, who was 16 when he was arrested and detained for a number of charges, including "housebreaking," robbery and rape (Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, 1966). Kent was summarily transferred to an adult court to be tried, not as a juvenile, but as an adult. Kent’s attorney argued that the procedure employed by legal authorities was unjust – specifically with the way he was remanded to a higher court without prior warning. This case was appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which elected to hear the case in 1966. After hearing oral arguments, the

Section 411.35 (h) states that if a trial judge finds failure of complying with this section, the court can order a party and their legal representatives to pay any reasonable expense including attorney fees that was a result of a failure to comply with this section.

In Washington D.C., they banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm while prohibiting the registration of handguns. This law provides that no person can carry an unlicensed handgun, but the law authorizes the police chief to issue a one-year gun license to police officers. This law also requires the residents of Washington D.C. to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled/bound by a trigger lock. In the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Heller was a D.C. special policeman who applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District declined. Heller filed a suit against the District from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, which is the licensing requirement

1. Plessy v. Ferguson, Guinn v. United States, Buchanan v. Worley all dealt with the Jim Crow laws or Seperate but equal legislation. The Jim Crow laws were laws written to separate blacks and whites in public areas/meant African Americans had unequal opportunities in housing, work, education, and government. Seperate but Equal legislation was the judicial precedent established by in the Plessy v Ferguson decision that enabled states to interpret the equal protection provision of the fourteenth amendment as a means of establishing segregation. The blacks tried to take action to reduce the Jim Crow laws by trying to make life better. They developed universities, churches, political appointments and jobs.

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

In the United States v. Virginia court case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single sexed school in Virginia. The VMI’s purpose was to train males to become leaders in the future. The District Court knew that women was missing an opportunity for equal education. Virginia wanted to make an institute for women, and they thought it would be equal to the VMI. They would both offer comparable educational benefits. The Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) couldn’t do much without compromising the school’s adversative method.

Legislation passed under former Chief Justice John Marshall would continue the Federalists agenda to define a strong central government while diminishing state level powers. Arguably the most important Supreme Court case in history, Marbury v. Madison’s (1803) presided over the commissions of several judges appointed in the final hours of the Adams administration. Chief Justice Marshall would deny the petition and writ, claiming the court did not have the power to issue them however; he awarded the plaintiffs their commissions. As result Marshall’s decision established judicial review allowing federal courts to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. Despite the immediate limitations Marshall place on the court his actions would

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a debtor may not void, or “strip off,” a wholly underwater second lien in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmation of a decision from the Middle District of Florida, which had granted the debtors' motions to void the underwater second liens.

The perfect example of how we don’t have full freedom of speech would be in the Elonis V. United States case in which a man repeatedly threatened his wife on Facebook after she left him and took their children with her. He started off by saying “There’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from al the little cuts.” The wife obtained a protection order against him and was granted custody of their children. Elonis then challenged his conviction by stating that that was violating his first amendment rights and that internet users may vent online if they state that they’re not really going to execute the threat. However, just because someone says theyre not going

In a 6-3 opinion favoring the United States, Justice Black wrote the majority opinion. He stated that the act of limiting the rights of any particular racial group should always be subject “to the most rigid scrutiny” by courts of law. These acts, however, are not necessarily in violation with the Constitution. In wartime, national security and public necessity are exposed and these threats of dangers may justify the restriction of certain rights. It is true that these restrictions forced hardships upon American citizens, yet that is sometimes the price you pay in wartime. In this case, the need for protection of national security outweighed Korematsu’s rights.

Sonia Sotomayer: Florida was violating the 6th amendment in sentencing people to death. Although, with each state having different rules about the death penalty, the majority supreme court decision was that Florida was acting in unconstitutional ways and that both a jury and a judge should have the final say in whether or not to send people to death.