Bralen V. Ruthie Mitchell's Case

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

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

In the infamous Dred Scott V. Sandford case, in 1857, the Supreme Court upheld that no one of the African American race has the ability to sue any United States federal court. Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans were "chattel" and had no rights under a "white man's government". Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise was affirmed unconstitutional, because the Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the Western Territories. Sandford was favored by the Supreme Court, which gave slave owners the right of property, in the Fifth Amendment, including slaves who were bought and sold like property.

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

The name of the case is District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.The plaintiff Dick Heller; District of Columbia is defendant . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided this case in 2008. Heller, D.C. special policeman, applied to a record certification from the city of Washington, D.C. for a handgun, which he wanted to hold it at home. A statute of Washington, D.C. banned having a gun within doors with no license, and it also demanded any legitimate handgun conserved at home to be extended inactive via take of a trigger-lock. The defendant, District of Columbia,disclaimed claim of Heller for a record certification established on its law. Dick Heller then has filed a suit in a court of Federal district for the District of Columbia, reasoning that the city’s trial on the

Supreme Court of the United States decision on the King v. Burwell case was a 6-3 decision in favor of Burwell. One major point that the majority touches upon is the fact that the statement “an exchange established by the state” is in fact an ambiguous statement. The ACA directed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to set up federal exchanges for any state that refuses to set one up. With the specific phrase “such exchange” to define the government's exchange program set up in Virginia means that federally and state run exchanges are interchangeable entities. Now that the phrase had been deemed ambiguous language, the next question to answer is, “whether one of the regulation's permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that

In the opinion of Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Anita M. Volpe, Esq., Anita M. Volpe, Esq., the sole partner at her law firm, which focused on family law, Social Security disability, real estate, probate and estate planning matters, submitted a voluntary surrender request on June 15, 2016 through her counsel, George T, Dilworth, Esq.. On June 22, 2016, the Board of Overseers of the Bar advised that the Court should accept Attorney Volpe’s surrender request. The Court followed direction set forth by the Board of Overseers of the Bar; during the final hearing in said matter, which occurred on August 30, 2016, Attorney Volpe’s surrender from the Maine bar was accepted.

Things happen when you least expect as is the case of “Virginia vs Dustin Turner”. Dustin Turner was found guilty for the murder of Jennifer Evans. The story goes that Bill Joe Brown chocked and killed 22 year old Jennifer Evans because she would not accept his drunk, aggressive advances toward her and Dustin helped Billy hide her body for 8 days before reporting it to the police which caused things to change in his life forever. Dustin was sentence to 82 years and Billy Joe Brown was sentence to 72 years both without parole. The sentence that Dustin received was not fair because he was also charged with sexual assault and kidnapping which was not accurate.

As an American, we know, and are immune to this country starting to build on technology. Where every call or click online can be traced back, stored, searched and put together to reveal a portrait of private life. However, current law gives little privacy protection to information about these activities, overstepping the First and Fourth Amendment safeguards that are guaranteed to individual freedoms. There are two cases to be discussed, Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller, two of the most important Fourth Amendment decisions of the 20th century. “In these two cases, the Court held that people are not entitled to an expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily provide to third parties” (Thompson, para. 1). This proposition, know as the third-party doctrine, permits the government access to a vast amount of information about individuals, such as the websites they visit, who they have emailed, the phone numbers they call, and their utility, banking, and education records.

Ninth Circuit Court holds that an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private office, because it is locked and not shared with others. This reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the contents of their office, including the employee’s company computer, located therein. As a result, the court held that the fourth amendment protects both the office and computer from warrantless searches by the government unless it obtains valid consent from either the defendant or one with common authority over the items searched, or proceeds on the authorization of one with apparent authority to give such valid consent. In this case, the Ninth Circuit holds that the government obtained valid consent from one with common authority over the items searched, when it received such consent from the employee’s employer. The employer had common authority over the employee’s office computer because it had a policy of, and regularly did, monitor employees’ computer usage of company machines, a policy of which its employees were made aware. The court accordingly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found by the government during its warrantless search of defendant’s office computer. As a result, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of the receipt of obscene material based, in part, on evidence obtained during this search. The evidence obtained during this search, and by the company earlier, showed that defendant had viewed and had possession of

Even though the Dred Scott and Korematsu cases stunted equality growth in America, there have been some accomplishments in equality. For example, before women were discriminated against because they were seen as unfit to do the laborious work of men. However, there have been some steps to increase gender equality. The United States v Virginia Supreme Court Case was a landmark case that stopped the all-male admission policy of Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The United States sued VMI because there was no equal education opportunity for women, and therefore violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Instead of allowing women to be accepted, Virginia proposed the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL). However, this

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 required that state courts permit the defendant to seek the counsel of an attorney. The court’s decision in the Powell case required that free counsel be given to indigent defendants faced with serious federal offenses. It did not mandate that all indigent persons be given free counsel, only if it was thought that the trial verdict would be unfair without representation. It was not until Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) that the Supreme Court held indigent persons could not be imprisoned without the right to representative counsel. The Powell case enabled the Supreme Court’s decision to be used

I have received Mr. Burleson response. With no explanation, MSHA does not want to reduce the citation to the amount we should be paying. MSHA proposed settlement of 50% off $5000 which is $2500 is their settlement offer.