Fifteen Excellent Examples: Edward Vs. Roberts

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

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.

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, there have been numerous notable court cases. However, none of these would have been possible without Maybury v. Madison. It occurred in 1803, when John Adams decided to appoint several justices at the last minute. Not all of these letters were delivered, and one of the judges, Maybury decided to sue Madison. Madison won, and this court case creates Judicial Review.

The supreme court frequently began using the Tenth Amendment during the progressive era. In various literatures I found of supreme court cases, it is seen that often times state laws that established a maximum of work hours allow and/or to create working conditions. Various legislation that were created were often times declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. Legislation that were intended to help people were ruled unconstitutional because it supposedly actually “harmed” workers by taking away their freedom to work long hours for low wages in such conditions. Certain legal interpretation influenced Justices' reasoning, and they decided that the choice would affect the rights and liberties that the government should

This can be considered one of the most important Supreme Court case in the history of the United States. This was the first case to deal with the principle of judicial review. When John Adams term was ending he rapidly began to appoint people to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia under the organic act, which was an excuse to put federalists congress. What was an impulsive presidential decision became one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in American history. When Jefferson entered office he told his senator of state James Madison to ignore the commissions because they were 'invalid' since they were not delivered before John Adams left office. William Marbury was one of the intended receivers

Although it was not considered an important case when it happened, Marbury vs Madison ended up having an a massive impact on the way our government works, because it established the Supreme Court’s power to declare a law unconstitutional. This historic argument began when James Madison, the secretary of state under Thomas Jefferson, refused to send commissions to the offices of some federal judges, and “the judges sued Madison to compel delivery” (Oates 210). These judges, including William Marbury, wanted the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison. After all, Congress had passed a law specifically stating that the Supreme Court could issue writs in cases like this. But, the chief justice John Marshall knew that if he issued the

The supreme court sees generally to be ignored on the vast majority of its cases that it holds. Some cases hold a particular interest from the public because of publicity due to the topics they address but it is no secret that the vast majority of these cases are ignored by people in their everyday life. It can be seen with some examples from cases like Brown v. Buhman, Spokeo v. Robbins, Fisher v. University of Texas that the decision made in these cases can have an impact on the lives of all or many citizens that generally ignore their outcomes holding no regard for the standings of the supreme court.

Representation is a substantive issue that is constantly being questioned in the judicial system. As our society continues to advance and adapt to new methods to better serve its citizens, new issues has roused to the surface. As a result, individuals have brought their case to court challenging how the court interprets the law.

Facts: The plaintiff (Marbury) was denied his commission by Secretary of State (Madison), so he went to the Supreme Court in order to obtain his commission (under the Judiciary Act of 1789) (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). There was no Lower Court decision because Marbury could go straight to the Supreme Court in this type of situation.

The power of judicial review is certainly a power that should not be taken for granted, though it seems over the past few decades it has. Without judicial review, other branches of the government would likely have performed acts that would be deemed unconstitutional. Jefferson did not wish for federalists to continue holding judgeships, or new ones to come forth for that matter, and ordered Madison to withhold these commissions. Thus, Marbury, one of the would-be appointees, sued leading to the case of Marbury v. Madison. The case of Marbury v. Madison provided a clearer picture as to why such a power as judicial review be set in place. Marshall saw this as an opportunity for growth in regards to the power of the Court as well as to interpret

For two weeks, Butterfield stayed out of Nixon’s sight. However, on February 18 Haldeman came running to find Butterfield and informed him that he had to go on an emergency trip to California. He had to go sign the sale of his house and he would be gone for about four days. That meant that Butterfield would have to be introduced to Nixon immediately. They bursted into the Oval Office unannounced and Butterfield noticed that Nixon was startled. After Haldeman introduced him, Butterfield extended his hand out for a handshake. The president mumbled a couple words and then lifted his right hand up to cover his mouth briefly. Nixon began to move one foot back and forth as if though he were digging into the carpet. After a substantial amount of time

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

run by school officials, that it could be controlled by them, "so long as their