Eldridge V. Case Study

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).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

Question: Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment for the employer by the in regards to the four actions brought against Indiana University by the plaintiff Gawley? Did Indiana University violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

Since the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of M’s appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling on the matter in 2010, which means the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and the $18.5 million judgment against M.

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

In the Supreme Court case, Elonis v. United States, Anthony Elonis, the petitioner, claimed that his First Amendment rights were being denied. Elonis used Facebook as a platform for venting comments about people who he felt had done him wrong. Elonis’ words, however, were interpreted to be threats. As an American citizen, Anthony Elonis is protected by the First Amendment as he claims. Having freedom of speech, however, does not mean that a person can say anything they want, whenever they want. Examining the First Amendment, quoting from the Brief for the United States and the Brief for the Petitioner will prove that Elonis did violate federal law.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the US for the district of Missouri.

In the case of Elonis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Elonis’s speech did not count as a “true threat” since a subjective intent to threaten was needed. An objective standard would not be sufficient in this case because we want to separate actual criminal acts from heat of the moment mistakes. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not include intended victims of the threats and they need to be taken into account as well. The government’s duty to protect the right to first amendment’s freedom of speech and its duty to keep people safe can collide from time to time. Therefore, we may have to take all threats seriously and not just the ones the speaker intends, in order to protect everyone from potential violence and prevent preemptive strikes out of fear.

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

John Adams appointed 200 men for 16 spots called the “midnight appointments” during the latter part of his presidency. The Organic Act allowed Adams to appoint 42 Justices of the Peace. Marshall as Adam’s outgoing secretary of state failed to deliver all of the commissions. The new secretary of state, Madison, refused to deliver five of the remaining commissions. Mr. Marbury and three others were denied their commission went straight to the Supreme Court to appeal.

Elmore County DHR’s testimony revealed that based on the request for a hearing that the non-custodial parent’s (NCP) attorney sent, the agency is under the impression that the NCP’s attorney is of the opinion that the court findings is that the arrears could not be determine; dismiss the arrears. The custodial parent (CP), Tracey Boozer, applied for services on June 10, 2014. At that time, the agency completed an Affidavit of Past Due Support based on the divorce and the courts payment record. The agency filed a contempt action with the court against the NCP. On October 27, 2014, the court referee ruled that it was unable to determine the arrears. The order quoted “Arrears are unable to be determined after testimony.” Afterward, through

Sally Bright (Petitioner), filed for divorce and custody of 14 year old daughter, Chastity. John Bright (Respondent) also requested custody. The court ordered temporary custody of the minor child to Petitioner and visitation with Respondent every weekend. Petitioner will be moving to another part of the country to take a job.

I believe the judge was reserving ruling on whether or not to award attorney fees. Please include language that the judge is reserving ruling on an award of attorney fees. The way the order reads now it makes it sound as so the judge is awarding attorney fees, but simply

The Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) case has great historical significance and present day value. The background surrounding the case is of a defendant who fell into oppressing situations, leaving him in a lengthy legal battle over social security disability claims. Administrating procedures of programs like the social security might cause issues, resulting with the judicial branch to assists in clarifying with, if not create, policy making and implementation. This case can be viewed as one of interest of government versus personal interest. This case tested administrative law and due process procedures, concluding with a “U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has define the requirements of administrative due process since it was rendered in the mid- 1970s” (Cooper, 2007). “On the few occasions when the Supreme Court has commented on this aspect of due process, it has suggested a choice between extremes: either due process requires one-size-fits-all procedures designed for the average or typical person in a particular context, or due process requires procedures that are determined on a case-by-case basis” (Parkins, 2014). Parkins is commenting on the due process issue that is to be reviewed pertaining to Mathews v. Eldridge.