Barney V. Dailey Case

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

of care and changes in the patient’s condition to revise the course of medical treatment if

Secondly, the patient should be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself. Thirdly, the patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.  Interested patients must also provide the request for termination in writing to the physician. In addition, physicians are expected to inform patients to alternative means of care including hospice care and other medications. Only after precautions evaluation, the laws then permit patients to make the ultimate life ending decision.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

The landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson is a Constitutional case in which it had to be decided who the constitution meant when it said "all men are created equal." This case is very important to our constitution and to the people being governed by the constitution because it brought up issues that hadn't been discussed in the U.S before. This case shows the degree of federalism and how much the government paid attention to it. The amendments in the constitution do not apply to a simple race or ethnicity. Throughout history laws have been made and destroyed at the cost of colored people, in the Plessy v. Ferguson case it is shown that due to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments all citizens have equal protection under the law. Plessy was denied his right, as well as other colored people because they belonged to different bathrooms, they belonged to different train cars and they belonged to different water fountains at this time in history, but Plessy'

the care of the patient is better served at another facility that can provide certain services

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

Imagine being raped and no one can hear you scream for help. Imagine telling someone about the incident and no punishments were received. Meet Christy Brzonkala a freshman at Virginia Tech that was raped by two individuals. Ms. Brzonkala started off by going to state court to testify against Mr. Morrison and Mr. Crawford explaining to the judge and the people that those two gentlemen had sexual intercourse without giving them permission. Since the incident happened in Virginia, the case was held there and not in Pennsylvania. Mr. Morrison even admitted that he had sexual intercourse with her when she repeatedly stated “no”. The punishments Mr. Morrison and Mr. Crawford received were unacceptable and very disappointing. Mr. Morrison was only kicked out of the school and later was allowed to come back because of technical error that occurred. Mr. Crawford did not receive any punishment because he had an alibi, which resulted in him being innocent because there was not enough information on him. This led Ms. Bronzkala to go to federal court against Mr. Morrison and Virginia Tech because she claimed the school did not handle

The lawyer of a man who is being accused of murder contacted me. It was requested that I be the expert witness and decide if the man, Edward Gein, is mentally fit to stand trial.

In 1994, Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, stated that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford raped her. A year later, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy. After two hearings, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. At some point throughout the duration of these hearings, Morrison personally admitted to having sexual contact with Brzonkala after she said “no” twice, however still affirmed that the sexual act was consensual. Crawford, however, stated that he left the room before any sexual activity commenced and was later charged with a lesser offense that was unrelated to sexual conduct. Being that both Morrison and Crawford were valued varsity members of the prestigious Virginia Tech football team and worried about the continuity of their athletic careers, they made an appeal through the university’s administrative system to reduce their suspensions. After being processed, the punishments were set aside

need professional help at a higher rate, allowing treatment networks to reduce their costs of acquisition and creating

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

Style of Cause and Citation: - R. V. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130 Court: - Supreme Court of Canada Facts of the Case: - Appellant is a addicted to drugs - Was a dealer as well - Has a prior coniction in relation to drugs - Has served time for his prior conviction - Was then convicted on three accounts of possession with the purpose of trafficking Issues/ Questions before the court: - Is the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 5(3) of the CDSA unconstitutional? - Dose this violate section 12,7, and 9 of the charter? - Do the provincial courts have the power to rule that something is unconstitutional? Procedural History: - Provincial court sentenced the appellant to twelve months under s. 5(3) of the CDSA - Appellant stated that

If my heart were to stop suddenly, I wish to be resuscitated. My serving health care agent may then decide based on medical advice if I am able to exist without life support. If life-support or life sustaining treatments are needed to keep me alive then I request that all those treatments other than those needed to keep me comfortable be discontinued or withheld and that my physician(s) allows me to dies as gently as possible. I understand and authorize this statement as proved by my signature