Defunis V. Odegaard Case Study

Rinaker vs Superior Court case is a juvenile delinquency proceeding minors, Christopher G. and Huy D, are charged with committing vandalism. Minors were allegedly convicted with throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car. Torres later brought a civil harassment case against the minors, which began the process of mediation in an effort to resolve the civil harassment action.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

In Alabama in the early 1970’s, there was a height and weight limitation, in order to be considered as a candidate for becoming a prison guard. The restrictions were minimum 5’2 and 120 pounds. Such requests ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who made a class action suit against the requirements, as she thought that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Dianne Rawlinson raised the legal question in Court whenever height and weight requirements for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

Within the United States Constitution as it Pertained to the Dred Scott Case of 1856

I believe the constitutional reason of the holding in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford was unfair and unconstitutional in which CJ Taney decision ruled in favor of Sanford and therefore, failed to recognize the rights of the people to be free.

The court case of Hodgson v Minnesota is over whether it is constitutional to require a minor to notify both parents at least 48 hours before receiving an abortion. The opposing view states that both parents should be notified and that it should be of the discretion pertaining to the minor if they are mature enough.

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

Federalism is a system where the government entities like states or provinces both share power with the national government. Federalism works by balancing the power of a small reign government such as the states against the power a large government which is the national government with giving both entities some forms of authority. By giving them some powers, this would prevent the national government from have full of control over the country. Dividing the power is guaranteed by the Constitution, to make sure that the national government doesn't ignore the states rights. In the Hammer v. Dagenhart case of 1918, industries were growing and so were the large rise of immigrants entering the United States. These industries needed more workers,

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?

Basically, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the decision of a higher court within the same provincial