Case 3: Henry Gifford Et Al. V. USGBC

The Association was involved in a pending civil lawsuit venued in Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota, against Urban Homeworks, Inc. (“the Declarant) in Master Civil Construction Engineering, Master Property Management, LLC and Master Development Services, LLC, (“the General Contractor”). The declarant and general contractor sued 3rd party subcontractors Advanced Stucco and Stone, Inc. “Advanced Stucco”, All Seasons Chalking and Company, Inc. “All Seasons”, Tappe Construction, Inc. (“Tappe”), Stellar Contractors, Inc. (“Stellar”).

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

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

The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.

Ms. Gershon testified that Mr. Welchel’s initial complaints were regarding the exterior and exposed walls. She testified that according to Mr. Welchel at the time those walls were not meant to be exposed and that they are interior walls. Ms. Gershon stated that the city looked into how to remedy the issues. One such remedy was a proposed application of a product to the exterior wall which would act as sealant. However, the city was uncertain as to the sealant’s reliability. The city ultimately decided to give and remunerate Mr. Welchel with the funds so that he could provide the repairs to the exterior walls himself. It was at that time they drafted the 1994 release agreement. Ms. Gershon stated that the walkway and the planters appeared to be in all at that period of time. Subsequent to entering the 1994 agreement, Ms. Gershon testified that she did not hear any complaints from Jim Welchel until around 2008 in which at that time he came into her office complaining of water damage to his building from the planters. Following that interaction, Ms. Gershon had the water irrigation system turned off. Ms. Gershon testified that the decision was not directly correlated to Jim Welchel’s complaints rather it was

The Halbig vs. Burwell legal case came to the attention of the healthcare field and the Supreme Court because of a question of whether or not the IRS was overstepping its bounds by providing subsidies to people who were purchasing their insurance through the federal exchanges rather than through a state exchange. The legislation specifically addressed giving subsidies to people who purchased through exchanges set up by the state. It did not make provisions for subsidies for people whose state did not develop an exchange, therefore the argument was that the IRS overstepped the law by giving subsidies to people who purchased their insurance through the federal exchanges. The plaintiffs were arguing that it was not lawful for these people to be

Does the Constitution explicitly state a right to privacy? This particular question was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in 1965 during the Griswold vs. Connecticut case. This case involved Doctor Griswold giving birth control pills to a married couple in order to prevent conception. In Connecticut at this time the use of contraceptives was illegal since one was not to avoid conception. However, law of contraceptives was not strongly enforced against individuals. As a result of Doctor Griswold giving the couple contraceptives, he was helping them break the law. This case was also seen as illegal because it was supposedly going against the right of privacy and was taken to court in order to address the use of contraceptives and if prescribing contraceptives to married couples was legal. However the right of privacy is something that is not clearly stated in the Constitution. When this case was then taken to the Supreme Court, there were many justices that interpreted this case and some were for and against the ruling. Three of the justices were Justice Douglas, Justice Harlan and Justice Black. The three of these Justices had different methods of reasoning about the Constitution and how the Constitution should therefore be interpreted. As a result not all of the reasoning’s included the theory of natural law, and not all of their theories are necessarily plausible. I myself feel that Justice Douglas’s way of understanding the constitution is the most plausible

In the US Supreme Court case Roper V. Simmons, the decision that was to be made is whether or not the execution of a minor convicted of a crime representing cruel or unusual punishment as well as unconstitutional. Christopher Simmons was a junior in highschool, he talked among his friends discussing how it would be easy to get away with murder to the fact of their age. Mr. Simmons explained to his friends that he wanted to “kill someone by breaking into and entering the person’s home, robbing the person, tying the person up, and then throwing the person off a bridge”(Scott). In the early morning of September 9, 1993 Simmons and his friend went to Ms. Cook’s home and did exactly as planned by Christopher, the suspect knew the victim from a car

Professional Building Maintenance vs The School Board of the County of Spotsylvania, Virginia in the Supreme Court of Virginia

Facts: The plaintiff was an employed for the defendant. The defendant informed the plaintiff that his position would be eliminated because of budget constraints. The defendant gave him the option of resigning and retiring or waiting until the December when the position would be terminated. The decision had to be made before the date of June 30th however there was new retirement policy taking effect on July 1st which would cause the plantiff not to receive his post-retirement medical benefits.

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

Under the CERCLA, a person who incurs such cleanup costs is entitled to recover from anyone who qualifies as a “responsible person” under the statue. Responsible person includes current owner or operator of facility. Nurad contends that even if the court applied the correct legal standard, it erred in its factual determination that the tenant defendants lacked the authority to control the USTs. Nurad insisted that the district court failed to give proper weight to the fact the Hooper Co. resumed its finishing operations as a tenant in 1966 in two buildings that the company released. The current owner sought reimbursement from previous owners and tenants at the site claiming that they were liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as owners of the facility at the time of disposal of the hazardous

(DOC 1) During the time of reform came World War 1. In 1914 the United States was basically forced to enter the war. Women wanted to take part in the war also, mainly because of how most of the men were going to fight in it. Being that women couldn’t physically fight in the war, they were recruited to work in munition factories. Women were “ filling the gaps left by volunteer and later conscripted servicemen, many taking jobs once believed to be too strenuous for women.” They worked for long hours but that didn’t really bother them because they finally got the chance to be included in the war. Women also created football teams, one being called the Southwick Lilies. This relates to the thesis because before this, women were not allowed or expected to do these type of things, for example, football. Football was always known to be a mens sport but WW1 allowed women to work in factories, which allowed unusual social activities for women.

On October 23, I went to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to attend the sentencing in United States v McClain. The judge was Reggie Walton and the room was sixteen, sixth floor. Initially I could not enter into the building because I only had my Paraguayan ID and they wanted to see my passport. I also show them my American University ID to prove my identity. The security guard consulted with his superior about my case and after a few minutes of deliberation the superior allowed me to get into the building. The reason was that I am an American University student and he said we visit the court all the time. However, he told me that for the next time I should bring my passport.

The second element under the Nike test determines whether the intended audience is likely to be actual or potential buyers or customers of the speaker’s goods or services. Nike, 27 Cal. at 960. In Bernardo, the plaintiff claimed that by publishing unlawful and confusing statements and advertisements about the safety of abortion and its connection to breast cancer, PPFA intended to mislead women into making inaccurate healthcare decisions. Bernardo, 115 Cal. at 328. The plaintiff failed to show that the intended audience of PPFA’s websites were “likely to be actual or potential buyers or customers.” The court held that PPFA did not target a particular