Case Study: Challenging The New Rule

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

Issue. The appellant wanted a new trial stating that new evidence were discovered. However, the appeal was denied by the court.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

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

With his opinion is NFIB v. Sebelius, Roberts established precedential value for this case. It is now regarded as an example to be considered in the subsequent similar cases. Justice Ginsburg said in her opinion that “until today, this Courts Pragmatic approach to judging whether Congress validly exercised its commerce

Another major problem the R.R.C. is facing is an issue experienced by many government offices. Job security is basically ensured at the R.R.C. and the process to terminate an employee is extensive and time consuming. All efforts must be taken to first make a reasonable effort to assist the employee in improving their performance. If the employee can't perform the duties of their position, an effort must be made to move them to a position they are capable of performing. If the employee is incompetent for any available position, only then can an employee be terminated. The biggest issue comes when the employer needs to

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

“Under a decision of the United States Supreme Court, a forum-selection clause is un-enforceable “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.” California courts have declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. If the court applies the doctrine of stare decisis, will it dismiss the suit?” (Cross,

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

In Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Cannon, Peter Cannon, an attorney, representing a client in a bankruptcy proceeding, was charged by Iowa’s Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board for plagiarizing a large portion of his submitted brief from a published article. When questioned by the judge regarding unusually “high quality” of his brief, Cannon responded that he was solely responsible for the briefs and that the briefs “relied heavily” upon an article entitled Why Professionals Must Be Interested in Disinterestedness Under the Bankruptcy Code.” The court affirmed the Board’s decision that Cannon’s sanction of a public reprimand was appropriate. The court reasoned that, inter alia, Cannon had charged his client unreasonable

Issues- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius brought up some unique and never before seen issues (The Affordable Care Act Cases).

The court reasoned that this testimony was crucial to the accused’ defense in that it “caused the appellant to engage in illegal conduct by methods of persuasion.” Ortiz at

Advocates: Roman Melnik(for the petitioners),Thomas G. Saunders(for the respondent) and Malcolm L. Stewart(Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae, for the respondent)

The lower court determined nuisance was present and awarded damages to the plaintiff, but denied injunction. When appealed, the intermediate court agreed with the lower court. When appealed once more, the highest appellate court denied the injunction yet remanded the case. Consequently, the lower court increased the damages award. Third, when the case was appealed once more, the highest state court reviewed the denied injunction, economic utility doctrine, available remedies, monetary damages amount, and the market value of the plaintiff’s property. Fourth, the lower court reviewed the property’s market value.

We represent Gaius Baltar and his nonprofit medical practice in a suit filed by Mothers Against Dope (MAD). MAD, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing voters with information regarding Proposition 64, which seeks to legalize marijuana, alleges that Baltar provided false and misleading statements about marijuana in his voter commentary. In MAD’s complaint, they exhibited the voter commentary, but not the official California State Voter Information Guide. If judicially noticed by the court, the voter guide, and the arguments raised in the voter guide, could provide important context to the case. This memo assesses two issues: 1) Whether the court can take judicial notice of the information contained in the official California Voter