Case Citation : Barnes V. Glen Theatre

Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that power to regulate interstate commerce. It was given to congress by the commerce clause of the constitution. It was led by Chief Justice John Marshall. The debate in Gibbons concerned contending cases of adversary steamship establishments. The condition of New York gave Aaron Ogden a select permit to work steamboat ships between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat administrator, ran two ships along the same course. Ogden looked for an order against Gibbons in a New York state court, asserting that the state had issued him elite rights to work the course. Accordingly, Gibbons guaranteed he had the privilege to work on the course in accordance with a 1793 demonstration of Congress directing waterfront business. The New York court found for Ogden and requested Gibbons to stop working his steamships; on bid, the New York Supreme Court avowed the request. Gibbons spoke to the U.S. Preeminent Court, which surveyed the case in 1824. John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York 's selective award to Ogden disregarded the government authorizing demonstration of 1793. In coming to its choice, the Court deciphered the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution surprisingly. The proviso peruses that "Congress should have energy to manage trade among the few States." According to the Court, "trade" included articles in

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

RULE OF LAW: In every other state or jurisdiction, a corporation is considered a foreign

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”.

One chilly December morning in 1868, William “Boss” Tweed smiled calmly as he lied to an entire court during a huge publicised trial Boisterous and humorous, he endeared himself to the jury members and escaped reproach. This trial was to address the huge issue of voting fraud that plagued New York. The Democratic party, of which Tweed was a powerful member, illegally counted Republican votes and doctored Democratic votes to outnumbered them. A letter printed in the paper, supposedly from Sam Tilden, another Democrat, asked New York politicos to send in their estimates of the votes right before the minutes were closed, and send them to a William M. Tweed (Ackerman 42-43). Several individuals were arrested and made witnesses. Some were handing

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at approximately 1000 hours, I assisted the patrol division in locating a burglary suspect that entered the residence of 1023 Barn Oak Court. The complainant/victim Nicole Smith stated to the Conyers Commutation that when she entered the front door of the residence, she heard an unidentified noise in the back bedroom. As she entered the rear bedroom the subject exited the residence through the rear window.

Both sides had major arguments and reasons why they thought their side was right. Regents of the University of California said that their special admissions program helped limit discrimination in our society. Medical schools normally were discriminatory towards minors (by the admission process based of credentials) so this program helped ease that problem. The Regents of the University of California also stated that the program will help poor communities by giving them physicians that will want to go and help out the cause of where they grew up. Regents of the

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.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

The Morse v. Frederick landmark Supreme Court case paved the way for the manner in which authority intervention can occur within the public school setting. As the case made its way from district court, to appellate court, to the final Supreme Court destination, it saw many opinions, differing verdicts, and arguments. Through this process, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morse, which mirrored my opinions and understanding of the case.

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

Facts: Beth Ann Faragher worked as a lifeguard for the city of Boca Raton between 1985 to 1990. During the time of her employment with the City, two of her supervisors Terry and Silverman created a sexually hostile atmosphere by groping her and other female employees, as well as having to be subjected to verbal harassment; she felt as though there was not a chance for her to advancement by the way Terry and Silverman spoke to her. Before Faragher resigned, a former female lifeguard

Lucky Horseshoe Restaurant which is a community restaurant owns and manages by Ms. Phyllis Smith, has been receiving complaint from nearby neighbor Ms. Ann Reid. Ms. Reid has filed a complaint with the local police department about the patrons of Lucky Horseshoe Restaurant, within the complaint Ms. Reid express her emotion about the restaurant by using strong foul language such as, “drunks” and “whores”. Ms. Smith, has filed a lawsuit against Ms. Reid stating, “The restaurant sales has dropped 30% because of Ms. Reid attitude toward the restaurant, which on multiple occasions Ms. Reid has tried to fights with the bartender and even calling him Satan.” Ms. Smith stated, “ These encounter happen on the patrons of the

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.