Charles Barker Case Summary

Officers responded to North Scott Hall to investigate the report of a 19 year old male UW Oshkosh student checking in with an odor of marijuana on him. The male admitted to smoking marijuana and drinking alcoholic beverages. He was warned for Use of Marijuana and cited for Underage Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (2nd offense).

The dispute involves a federal question and Congress has not conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts

The question the case introduced: Could Kansas induce property taxes on the Fort Leavenworth Railroad Company?

In the wrongful death case of Barker v. Hennessy, Richard Barker’s widow and children filed a claim against Hennessy Industries Inc. for losses sustained by virtue of the death of Richard Barker. Barker claimed that Hennessy Industries Inc. was liable for her husband’s death, under the theories of strict liability, negligence, false representation, and concealment, since they manufactured the equipment that was used to grind, sand, and cut asbestos brake linings and shoes that Barker had used in his profession as a mechanic ("Fern Barker v. Hennessy Industries Inc | FindLaw," n.d.). The court ruled in favor of Hennessy, finding that they were not liable because the machines that Hennessy made did not actually contain the asbestos that caused the death of Barker.

Brother Maurice Robinson is originally and currently residing in the town of Irmo, SC. He is a graduate of Irmo High School in Irmo. SC. He joined the membership of Pleasant Spring AME Church in 1999 where he has faithfully served as a member, Usher, and Officer on the local Sons of Allen Ministry. He is currently an elected Trustee of the Church where he dedicates a numerous amount of time in service to the works of the church. Brother Robinson is dedicated to the Church’s evangelical growth and personal support to all ministries of the church. Brother Robinson, consistently and faithfully volunteer to personally cook over 150lbs of Smoked Chopped BBQ, which requires several days of preparation and cooking, for several of the congregational

A decision of a federal appellate court other than the U.S. Supreme Court-Feggans v. Billington, 677 A.2d 771, 775 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996), Bainhauer v. Manoukian, 520 A.2d 1154, 1166 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)

(1962) this was a landmark decision that decided that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, therefore the federal courts had to intervene and decide redistricting cases. It resulted in the defendants being unsuccessful. This case said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. It has to do with the equal protection clause; this clause forces every individual citizen of the United States to be treated equally and without bias with regard to their pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to infringe on the individual person’s rights to pursue a happy

This was significant because there had been two earlier challanges to the law, but the Court refused to hear them on grounds that it was not clear if they could be prosecuted (1943, 1961).

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

1. What is the issue? In other words, what question of law had to be addressed by the court in deciding this case?

was a very important case that the Supreme Court decided on. However, the afore mentioned

Ron Chambers is a salesman at Mid-Town Supply a company that supplies office products to companies such as a pen, paper and small machines around the outer skirts of Los Angeles. Mid-Town has decided to expand their business to the local downtown area has just finished his training to take on potential clients in a large foreign territory into downtown Los Angeles that is much larger and they decided to send Ron. Ron was once a scholar salesman selling copy machines prior to Mid-Town, so he knew the steps to sale a product or service. However, he also knew the importance of representing Mid-Town and obtaining the deal.

This was seen as a Concurrent Jurisdiction where the federal court and the state court had jurisdiction over this case but when it comes to my personal opinion I believe only the federal court should of had jurisdiction over this case, it should not of been a Concurrent Jurisdiction.

▪ In which court was the reported case decided? Will the previous decision be treated as

What was the date the case was heard? What was the date of the judgment?