Gregory B. Clark Case Study

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

In the world of sports it started off that girls could never play sports and then in 1972 a public law called Title IX came to existence which allowed girls to play sports but not with boys. Today the question is asked should girls play on boys’ sports teams? One would think that girls should not play with boys on a sports team because boys are just naturally taller and stronger than women and they would dominate the girls in a fully contact sport. Another may think that if a girl is truly capable to play on an all boys’ sports team, then she should not be denied the opportunity to try out for an all boys’ team. Some other people may believe that sports at younger ages should remain co-ed because boys and girls body types are still

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. "The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a few sports for men. As a result, the university eliminated the men's soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1999 spring semester (Challenge 2002)." On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claming that the defendants' elimination of the men's wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U.S.C.& et seq. And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court found that the plaintiffs failed

A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

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

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

Unfortunately this decision was overturned on July 3, 2007 [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].

The Decision of the Court: Found in favor of petitioners. Opinion given by Judge Fortas

The article Sports and the Assumption of Risk Doctrine in New York, opened my eyes to the various cases that pertain to college student-athletes and the manner in which injury cases have historically been managed. In my research, the 1996 case of Searles v. Trustee of St. Joseph’s highlights the need for guidelines to neutralize student-athlete and administrator responsibilities as it relates to injuries. Searles alleged that he informed his basketball coach and trainer of a knee injury, which was later diagnosed as patellar tendinitis. Searles claims that his coach demanded that he continue playing after, even though his athletic trainer did not agree. Searles subsequently ended his college basketball career and underwent two surgeries

Kenneth Bancroft Clark was born on July,24,1914 in Panama Canal Zone, he died on May,1,2005 in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York. Clark’s parents were Arthur Bancroft Clark and Miriam Hanson Clark. When Clark was 4 ½ years old his mother made him and his siblings move to New York in 1919, but his father refused to leave and stayed in the country they where living in.

The District challenged the ALJ’s decision in Federal District Court, but that Court approved the ALJ’s IDEA ruling and granted summary judgment against the