Blue Cross V. Marshfield

The case of Mercer v. Duke University deals with the issue of women being allowed to play on contact sports teams. This case also raises issues of discrimination and whether or not federally funded institutions are prohibited from discrimination under Title IX. This is a very good case because it deals with a high-profile university and whether or not discrimination was an issue of one of the university’s college athletics.

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and to political committees such as PACs and parties. These aggregate limits restrict the total amount of money an individual may contribute to all candidates or all political committees during an election cycle. The plaintiff did not challenge the individual contribution limits on particular political entities but challenged the additional cap BCRA places on the total an individual can place on all political contributions. BCRA stands for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which addressed two main issues: “prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits . . . and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads” (which is defined as “electioneering communication” and was over turned in Citizens United v. FEC) (Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters). So what does this mean exactly?

Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse is a very detailed case, that features many aspects of the patriarchy, and lingering ways of thinking about gender that are hopefully being phased out of modern society. The Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling, which was the right decision in a legal sense, though there was more proof that Hopkins was discriminated against.

The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

Melnick, G., & Fonkycj, K. (2013). Fair pricing law prompts most California hospitals to adopt policies to protect uninsured patients from high charges. Health Affairs, 32(6), 1101-1108. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.nu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1372932073?accountid=2532

Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366; 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9198

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

In all industries, competition among businesses has long been encouraged as a mechanism to increase value for patients. In other words, competition ensures the provision of better products and services to satisfy the needs of customers (Glover & Rivers, 2009). In the health care industry, competition has an impact on many relational perspectives. There have been several studies examining the relationships between competition and quality of health care, competition and health care system costs, and competition and patient satisfaction. Some elements of competition in health care are price, quality, convenience, and superior products and