Why Is The Common Law Important In The Case Of Davis V. Baugh?

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

The case is brought to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiff Charles Baker suing Secretary of State of Tennessee Joe Carr, for the failure to redraw the legislative voting boundaries, something that was due over 60 years prior. A law that Tennessee legislature apportioned both houses and provided reapportionment every ten years on the basis of the population reported by the census, but failed to do since 1901. Baker argued that the population had shifted from the rural areas to the urban areas and that he himself was being affected and was being denied his equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. He sought to the court that that the state officials should hold an at-large election or they should halt the election process until the

Supreme Court of the United States decision on the King v. Burwell case was a 6-3 decision in favor of Burwell. One major point that the majority touches upon is the fact that the statement “an exchange established by the state” is in fact an ambiguous statement. The ACA directed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to set up federal exchanges for any state that refuses to set one up. With the specific phrase “such exchange” to define the government's exchange program set up in Virginia means that federally and state run exchanges are interchangeable entities. Now that the phrase had been deemed ambiguous language, the next question to answer is, “whether one of the regulation's permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action. It found diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest and allowed race to be one of several factors in college admission policy, but rejected specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the UC Davis School of Medicine. Although the court had outlawed segregation in schools, it had not resolved the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case

In Breed v. Jones, a petition was filed against Jones, a 17 year old, who committed acts of robbery. During a detention hearing Jones was ordered to be detained pending a hearing on the petition. After hearing the testimony from two witnesses and Jones, the juvenile court found that the petition was true. The proceedings were continued for a dispositional hearing, in which the Court indicated that there was no care, treatment, or training program through the juvenile court that would be conducive for Jones. Jones’ counsel orally moved to continue the matter, challenging that Jones was not informed that the hearing was going to be a transfer hearing. The Court declared Jones unfit for treatment as a juvenile, and ordered that he be moved to

The case of Powell v. Alabama was a landmark trial heard by the United States Supreme Court. The case determined that in a legal trial, the defendant is always awarded access to a lawyer if he or she requests one . Defendants in all capital cases are awarded this right because of the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The case begins with events that occurred in the spring of 1931. During this time, Nine African American boys were accused of raping two young white girls, named Victoria Price and Ruby Bates. The boys, who were called the Scottsboro Boys, were travelling on a train with nine white people. A fight between the two sides broke out and all but one of the white males was thrown from the moving train. The white women

The distinction between an act and a status would be best described by the case of Robinson v California in which the California statute makes it an offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics” (Brody and Acker, 2010). The actual act would be using the narcotics which is usually a criminal offense. However, the status would be addicted to narcotics. Just because someone is addicted to narcotics does not mean it is a criminal offense. Just the fact that they use the narcotics is.

This worker received a call back from Mr. Brown and he reported that he is the father of his daughter Destiny. He reported that he does not see his daughter regularly but communicates with her through the phone for few times a week.

This is a reliable source because we used this website in class to identify and utilize Supreme Court cases to use in our paper and because the website itself belongs to IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. The case was brought to the Supreme Court because Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. However, the forensic psychologist who relied on one witness account, testified that Atkins was mentally unstable and therefore could not be sentenced to death. After a second sentencing hearing (because the first had used a misleading verdict form), the jury once again sentenced him to death and it wasn’t until the Penry v. Lynaugh case when lawmakers agreed that the mentally handicapped could not be sentenced

United States v. Daniel Bayly et al., No. H-03-CR-363-1 (S.D. Tex). On June 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. James A. Brown et al. (Daniel Bayly et al.), Nos. 08-20038, 08-20039, 08-20040 (5th Cir.), ruled that double jeopardy or collateral estoppel principles do not prevent a retrial of three former Merrill Lynch executives on charges that they helped defraud Enron Corporation and its shareholders by agreeing to park Nigerian power-generating barges with Merrill Lynch in order to artificially inflate Enron's 1999 earnings. That transaction allowed Enron to enhance fraudulently its year-end 1999 financial position that it presented to the public and to meet its projected year-end numbers. Brown moved

Common law, or judgemade law or case law, is “law made and applied by judges as they decide cases not governed by statutes or other types of law (Christman, 1999).” Two cases have direct relationship with Tommy’s questions. The first case, Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc (1960), the Henningsen suffered personal injures by a defect in the steering mechanism. They sued when the

Germans are the converse of Brazilians: stern, strict, and succinct. Rather than prioritizing personal relations in negotiations, they prefer more objective facts and figures. Indeed, the Germans are downright obsessed with data. As a result, they expect their counterparts to be well prepared and ready to provide reams of information of even the most trivial matters upon request.

The case of Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 was a way for the law to see that law does indeed need to change with society. It deals with tort law and the right of action for intrusion upon seclusion existing in Ontario. It is based on personal privacy and the court heard that the defendant (Tsige) viewed the plaintiff’s (Jones) personal banking records 174 times within a four-year window. The plaintiff and the defendant did not personally know each other but worked at different branches of the Bank of Montreal in Ontario. The plaintiff was in a common-law relationship with the defendant’s ex-husband. When the plaintiff pursued litigation, the judge dismissed it because there was no existence of a tort invasion of privacy in Ontario at that

Do people with mental illness and in low socio-economic classes deserve to have children? In the 1927 Supreme Court case known as Buck v. Bell (1927), the answer was no. Dr. John Bell was a man who advocated for eugenics. Carrie Buck was a “feeble minded” woman.

To begin, common law originated in Medieval England in the time of King Henry II. The practice developed sending circuit judges from the King’s central court to travel throughout England to hear the various disputes. The aim of these courts (assizes) was to add consistency and fairness to the legal system. Alongside the traveling courts King Henry also established the jury system. Over time these judges recorded the information of each case they heard as well as the decisions and punishments that were ordered. This is known as case law or common law. This began a justice system that relied on the principle of stare decisis or “to stand by the decision”. This principle developed into the rule of precedent which was used to apply previous decision to a case with similar circumstance. This system was used throughout the country and thus was known as common law. As the English began colonizing Canada they brought their legal systems with them which greatly influenced today’s legal system. All provinces and territories in Canada follow the common law legal tradition and adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. In Canada law is made of two primary sources case law and legislation. Case law is made up of written decisions which have been made by judges in court cases and tribunals.Lower courts in Canada are bound by the higher courts decisions. For instance, all Ontario courts are bound by the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal. However, courts are only bound by the