Citizenship Jurisdiction

Citizenship in Athens and Rome has similarities and differences. Being a citizen is being a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government. Being a citizen meant different things in each empire. The relationship between the citizen and their nation varied from their system of citizenship. Rome had a better system of citizenship because they were more open to who they allowed citizenship, they gave people they conquered citizenship, and personal grudges, judgements about others/topics would not affect the Empire.

Jane was involved in a single-vehicle accident that resulted in multiple areas of injury from a head trauma, two broken ribs as well as bilateral fractures in her leg’s as well as right arm and wrist fracture. Jane was, transported a hospital that was an hour and half away from her home.

To state a claim for NIED, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was located near the scene of the accident; (2) he sensorily and contemporaneously observed the accident; and (3) he and the victim are closely related. Sinn v. Burd, 404 A.2d 672, at 685 (Pa. 1979). There can be little dispute that Arnett was near the scene of the accident. However, whether Arnett sensorily and contemporaneously observed the incident and whether Nolan and Arnett are closely related are in question. This memorandum will address all three

The Birthright Citizenship Amendment is one that has caused controversy. Should  a person that is  born in the US, regardless of whether the parents were here temporarily, or illegally be considered an American citizen? The 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside”, ( Spalding, 2010). The interpretation of this amendment has caused the controversy.

Over a century ago, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implemented to grant citizenship to individuals born within the country. This was the first time that it was defined what it means to be a citizen in the U.S. While the amendment was created to address the citizenship of slaves, it is currently under speculation in regards to granting U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (Gans, 2012). While there have been many arguments to place restrictions or eradicate granting children of undocumented immigrants U.S. citizenship, the constitutional right remains the same: if you are born on U.S. land, you are a citizen (Angelo, 2013). This paper argues that the birthright citizenship of U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants should continue to be granted based on the underlying principles of the 14th Amendment and the possible implications of ending birthright citizenship. First, this paper describes birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, as well as its use in several Supreme Court cases that are significant to this issue. Then, various implications of eradicating birthright citizenship are discussed. Before discussing the possible consequences of eradicating birthright citizenship, it is imperative to discuss the history and principles underlying it.

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

Mr. Foster is student at Jacksonville State University. 2014 was his second year at Jacksonville, and he was taking a year off from studies to work and save money. Mr. Foster had gone home to Georgia for Christmas, but was returning to Jacksonville to pick up some Christmas gifts he had left at his apartment. He had stopped at Walmart in Jacksonville and was headed to his apartment in the late afternoon. He thinks he may have dosed off at the wheel he rounded a curve off of the town square, and “next thing I know” the traffic light was red and his vehicle struck the vehicle of the plaintiff. Mr. Foster concedes running a red light, but says it was raining and the asphalt was slick.

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.” Without the right that the Constitution brings us, we wouldn’t have rights therefore the United States wouldn’t be a good place to live in. The Constitution brings us the right of freedom of speech (first amendment) , the right to bear arms (second amendment), and the right to protect against unreasonable government actions such as search and seizure of person property (fourth amendment). Being an American citizen means that you have rights that they would like you to fulfil. As an American citizen is it voluntary to vote, but others are required such as obeying the law and paying taxes. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and the Petition of Rights explains the rights and the responsibilities of an American citizen.

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

I don't think they achieved full citizenship because they still faved segregation, they don't have complete rights, there was racism. Some ways they faced segregation were their public spaces were separate and more run down than rights. Blacks couldn't go the same places or do the same things as whites with whites. A lot of people were hostile toward them because they had been taking there jobs. Although the 14 amendment said they had full citizenship they didn't because they still couldn't vote . Another way they weren't full citizens was they couldn't serve in a jury because they were former slaves. One way they faced racism was with the ku klux klan (kkk) because they wanted to drive them out of a political life. The ku klux klan (kkk)

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

This however was after a party with a lot of alcohol. So Robert as well as Andy has been drunk, while Andy was drinking his car. Andy was being very careless in his driving. Andy had ran a red light during this time which was a very bad mistake. At the red light a semi came through and hit Andy and Robert from the side.

Donna Driver unintentionally ran a red light, and caused a car accident with Vic Victim. Vic sustained severe injuries. Donna’s auto insurance policy with Gekko has liability coverage limit of $100,000.00. Vic’s medical bills alone run close to that, and there’s also his loss of work and pain & suffering to be taken into account. Vic wants to settle the entire case for $100,000.00, and Donna pleads with Gekko to do so since it is obvious that he could recover more than that based on the facts of this case. Gekko tells her that they will only offer $50,000.00, and if it’s not accepted, they will take their chances at trial.

Mya met up with John Mccain who needed a ride from Paleto Bay. While driving back into Sandy Shores she got into a side swiping collision as a driver hesitated and pulled out when it wasn't his right of way. Mya quickly got out and started yelling at the driver. An officer pulled up and seperated them. There they discussed what happened and they were written a court date to go to and dispute the accident in front of a judge. With two tires busted and her front grilled split opened, Mya