Federal Courts Case Study

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

The Eighth Circuit Court has raised an intriguing legal and controversial issue by ruling that the State of Arkansas could force death row prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, to take antiphychodic drugs to insure he was sane for execution. After research, I found that Singleton remained in the appeals process for twenty-four-and-a-half years because of the 1986, U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ford vs. Wainwright, that ruled execution of the insane is cruel and unusual punishment. The state authorities finally decided to treat the prison inmate based on the 1990, U.S. Supreme Court decision, Washington vs. Harper, that subjects prison inmates with serious mental illness to mandatory anti-psychotic drugs against his

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

9. What are specialized courts? What role might they play in the future of court processing moving forward? According to Quinn, what are some of the pros and cons of specialized courts? Specialty Courts are problem-solving court sessions which provide court-supervised probation and mandated treatment focused on treating the mental health or substance abuse issues underlying criminal behavior.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that set the standard for determining whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by a lawyer's alleged incompetence during trial. On September 25,1789 the Sixth Amendment was introduced into the United States Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, and on December 15, 1791 it was ratified. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right “[T]o have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The US Supreme court wanted to deem what Native Americans were in the evolution of the United States of America, in just they really wanted to change the stance on tribal sovereignty that fit the US. Before set laws the only ways to deal with Native Americans were through wars, bullied negotiations and forced treaties to acquire all land. Treaties functioned as the most important documentation describing the relationship between Europeans and Natives. This continued until the courts began to bring specific meaning to these laws that were recognized through the courts of the US. A land title definition to the Europeans politics was that Indian’s had land to give and was for private individuals to receive. So there was a need to regulate these

Ms. Melina Goode is an Administrative Assistant for the D.C Superior Court with 2 years’ experience in the Supervised Visitation Center of the D.C Superior Court. As the highlight of her career with the Court’s, Ms. Goode provided quality reinsurance to families in complex legal matters, domestic relations, and mediation cases. With her background in youth volunteering with Prince Gorges County Parks & Recreation, she idealistically focused on demonstrating the sincere message of concern for the need of fathers in children’s lives and families function together. Ms. Goode’s diligence in her administrative capacity to move throughout the courts to various division’s for providing support, has left a trailblazing impact on families in the District

While at GPM, I attended a session of Treatment Accountability Court (“TAC”) (formerly Mental Health Court) and DUI/Drug Court. Both Courts operate similarly. Several hours before the court session, members of the legal community meet to discuss the progress of each participate scheduled to appear that day. Legal representatives include members from the Sheriff’s Office, Solicitor General’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, the judge who presides over the proceeding, a Program Coordinator & Counselor, a misdemeanor probation officer, and a felony probation officer. The group discusses the status of each participate and whether they’re meeting the conditions set forth by the court. The programs are conducted in phases,

The Marshall Court permanently changed a number of aspects in the United States Government. The Court affected the amount of power the Federal Government possessed, the government’s power over the economy, their role as the Federal Government, the concept of implied power, and the rights of American Indians. The Marshall Court system ultimately gave the Federal government, most notably the Judicial Branch of the government, a greater amount of power to sway the decisions of the states. The Judicial Branch of the government became assertive, pushing to make their judgment absolute, this removed power from the states. The Marshall Court allowed the Federal Government to create a powerful Judicial Branch that was capable of changing many aspects of the American court system and the rights of the states.

The Eleventh Circuit found that the Commission’s selection process in 2003-2004 “categorically excluded” certain faiths from the list of potential invocational speakers for meetings of the planning commission. Id. at 1282. In addition, the court found that the Commission’s selection of invocational speakers was not based on an impermissible motive because it included diverse religious institutions. Id. at 1278 ( citing Marsh 463 U.S. at 793-94).

Would filing a diversity jurisdiction lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of Florida result in Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §1927, or some other violations when the defendant resides in Minnesota? It depends. It depends on whether the court will exercise discretion to sanction. The court would likely to sanction Ms. Rodriguez’s lawyer under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 due to the motives of “home court” advantage and to inconvenience Paulsen. Ms. Rodriguez has meet subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived by Paulsen as can venue, and the choice of law would be Minnesota state law since the contract was created and breached in Minnesota.

On June 28, 2013, appellee, Jennifer Brandeen, (“Mother”), was awarded an absolute divorce from appellant, David Brandeen, (“Father”) in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The circuit court amended its judgment on November 6, 2013. Mother later appealed the circuit court’s decision to this court, where we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment except on a question relating to the court’s marital property award. Father, sought--and was granted--an en banc review of the circuit court’s judgment. After the en banc review, the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed.

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

I am interested in attending the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University due to the plethora of opportunities that are offered to their law students. I believe that these opportunities are encapsulated by the Scalia Law Advantage, as the law school’s proximity to northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. grant access to an incomparable amount of career opportunities and high-caliber faculty. These features are especially of interest to me as I believe that gaining practical experience in the government, a private law firm, or a non-governmental organization would be integral in developing a legal career. In addition to the exceptional location and professional opportunities, Mason Law’s smaller community and 1:11.8 teacher to student