Bradwell V. Illinois

Craig v. Boren was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate examination under the Equal Protection Clause which is part of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court established a new standard of judicial review for laws with gender-based classifications. What happened that brought this case to the Supreme Court was a law in Oklahoma that prohibited the sale of beer with 3.2% alcohol content to males under the age of 21 years old, but females who were under 21 but over 18 could also buy the alcohol. Craig v. Boren ruled that the gender classification violated the Equal Protection Clause of the

Issue: Under the state’s tort law, does forgery occur when an individual finds a check written out to cash, and was there any intent to injure or defraud.

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

In 1973, Norma McCovery who is also known as Jane Roe brought a case to the Supreme Court. She and her defense team claimed that the 1859 Texas abortion law violated women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Before reaching the Supreme Court, this case, which was a class-action suit, was argued in a Dallas Fifth Circuit Court on May 23, 1970. The judges in Dallas ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy which is found in both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment, so this case was then sent to the U.S. Supreme Court (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Following a fight with a friend outside a bar, Floyd Johnson, went to his house, got his .22 rifle and ten cartridges, went back to the bar, crawled under a pickup truck across the street and sat in wait for his friend. He later testified that he at first intended to shoot the friend to “pay him back” for the beating he received earlier.

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

He gets a phone call from a person identifying himself as Snitch aka ( Lloyd Williams) who tells the officer, "Trust me, Batman and Robin are planning to start a huge narcotics smuggling ring. They 've already imported more than 100 kilos of cocaine and are planning to slowly put them on the street through Drugger, using one of their erstwhile adversaries."

During the late nineteenth-century, women went to court to continue to secure their rights to participate in public life: to vote, to be a justice of the peace, to be a notary public, to serve as school district directors, school committee officers, school officers, and prosecuting attorneys, an of course to practice law (Drachman, 1998).

In this paper, I will discuss a number of topics regarding woman and the Supreme Court from historical precedents to objective research to the importance of female judges and Justices and finally to the possibilities of the future. Each of these steps is vital to fully understanding how we got to our country’s current place in female jurisprudence and creating future opportunities for women both on the Supreme Court and in all other levels of the judicial system across the United States.

For this weeks’ discussion post I chose the Supreme Court case of Pope v. Illinois (1987). This case has several values that make it significant in the field of obscenity and the First Amendment. Referring back to Miller v. California and how it set the standard for identifying obscene material not protected by the First Amendment, some portions are a bit more obscure than others. Take the third or “value” prong of the three part test to determine “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Prior to this case it was unclear how to exactly assess whether a work lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, but when two attendants at adult bookstores were charged with obscenity under Illinois law by selling certain magazines to undercover police, they moved to dismiss on grounds that the then-current version of the Illinois obscenity statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge in both trials instructed the jury that in

This now meant that women could no longer be denied rights based on narrow interpretations of the law. Second, women could now continue to work for greater rights and opportunities through the Senate as well as the House of Commons. The Persons Case was a significant moment in the history of women’s rights, even though the struggle for equality continues almost 100 years later. I chose it because as a woman i think that it is important to show at least one form of progress for women.