In case 2 of 15, the plaintiff, Edward Roberts, alleged discrimination based on color. This allegation falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (Mello, J. A. 2015). The courts will have to decide whether the defendant, the trucking company, discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his color. As presiding judge in the case, I would rule on Mr. Roberts’ behalf. The facts of the cases state Mr. Roberts came “in person on March 31, 2005” to apply, which clearly states his color was observed as he put in the application. Mr. Roberts experience was sufficient because he listed 22 months of prior experience as a road driver.
The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.
For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).
MILLERSBURG — A local man who admittedly filmed coworkers using an employee bathroom now faces the potential of local jail time.
In the 2001 trial of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s case of Landrigan vs. Stewart was a great example of how behavioral genetics can have both a negative and positive effects on criminal cases Landrigan had filed a petition because he claimed he did not have an effective counsel during the penalty phase of his capital case (Farahany, Beret).. After four years of being sentenced he said he would have been cooperative if his attorney tried to offer evidence, that his biological background ‘made’ him a criminal. Even with his effort to chance his sentence the Ninth Circuit was unmoved. His background showed the court room his genetics will make him still violent in the future, because he cannot change his genetic
In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.
Decision in Philadelphia was design to provide a close up information about the origins of the constitutions. From the points of view of the basic questions of human spirit and the relations of society to the government in general of the 55 delegates and what they sought to accomplish. Casting many of the Founding Fathers in a new light, reminding us that they were human, and not gods, “The writers of the American Constitution were not Angles” (page 306). Thus, sometimes giving unnecessary information about the delegates, overall it helps the reader to identify their prospective and what they sought to accomplish, and with different characters of the delegates, they wouldn’t agree in a lot of topic, making compromises which will beneficiate
United States is one of the few nations that guarantees and protects freedom of expression of its citizens. Freedom of expression is defined as a right to voice ones beliefs and ideas without any harm. Under the Bill of Rights, the government has no power to restrict these unalienable rights. The First Amendment is exceedingly important to the liberty and freedom of individuals. It guarantees citizens the ability to express themselves, worship, voice their opinions, and rally to situations they disapprove of and want to be heard. A great amount of laws and cases pertain to adults and their freedom. It is often unrealized that adolescents and teenagers endure the same issues in their lives.
The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights
n some states, studies have been conducted as a result of court cases where the plainti
There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),” the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the
Joshua and his mother filed a complaint against the DSS, which alleged that the DSS deprived Joshua DeShaney of his liberty without due process, which would be violating his rights under the 14th amendment, by failing to protect him against his father’s abuse which they knew of or should have
R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3,  1 S.C.R. 37 The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.
Christine provided Leonard with an alibi: Christine knew that her alibi would not be believed; she decided to testify for the prosecution; Christine then negated her own damning testimony.
Part One Judge Harlan’s Dissent is a written response about the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision. In the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, Homer Plessy argued that his decision to break the Louisiana Separate Car Act was denying his rights in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the majority decision debunked his arguments.