Hudson V. Spurlock Case Digest

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarding a slave in Missouri, his name was Dred Scott who resided in Illinois from the years 1833 to 1843. Illinois was considered to be a free state at this time, he lived in an area of the Louisiana Territory, this was a place where slavery was completely forbidden from the Missouri Compromise in 1830. Eventually Scott returned to Missouri, after doing so he decided to sue the Missouri court for his freedom, he was unsuccessful. His argument was that he claimed residency in a free territory area and this would make him a free man. Since this did not work Scott brought a new suit in federal court. But Scott’s master maintained that since he was a pure-blooded Negro of the African descent and also the descendant

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

In the case of Jones v. Massachusetts, Michael Jones, an employee of the Sussex County, MA clerk’s office refused to issue a marriage liscense to a same sex couple based on his religious beliefs. His supervisor terminated him from his job, and issued the marriage liscense personally. Jones brought this termination to court as a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. The following is a compilation of the evidence and logic that supports not only that this claim is constitutionally valid, but that the precendents the court has set also approve this notion.

The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford depicts how a Black-American struggles for his right to become a free man. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ignored in the case. On the other had the case of Korematsu v. United States shows a clear violation of amendments in the U.S constitution. The citizenship of Japanese Americans is questioned in the case. By analyzing the decision made in the cases of Dred Scott and Korematsu, were a clear violation of U.S constitution. This is significant because Dred Scott and Korematsu demonstrated the essence of racial biasness.

Two Utah sisters, Maria and Jan Brady posted a message on Facebook in support of anti-globalization and anti-genetically organism (GMO) activists against McDonalds restaurants, who had incited riots in Europe. The sister’s message, sent to over 500 “friends”, asking them to join the sisters in two days at 10 p.m. at a McDonalds near the sister’s apartment for a “night of riot, pillage, and fun”. A secondary message was sent out asking the participants to bring items that could be used as weapons or cause property damage.

In May of 1991, America experienced the Supreme Court make a five justice majority decision to uphold the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations on prohibiting recipients of Title X funds from counseling patients regarding abortion, finding that this condition did not violate the recipients ' First Amendment right to freedom of speech (Stan L. Rev. 1). Prior to Rust v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade stood as the foundational case for all abortion cases to come. Roe v. Wade initiated that a woman’s right to be free of government interference in deciding whether to have ab abortion does not imply a right to have the government subsidize that procedure. However, in Rust v. Sullivan, we are dealing with the first time the government has decided to deprive pregnant women of factually correct and medically necessary information. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion addressing that the gag rule stands with the support of his claim: “The government is not denying a benefit to anyone, but is instead simply insisting that the public funds be sent for the purposes for which they were authorized.” This case brings forward major controversy making a claim that the denying of counseling regarding abortion to pregnant women can be harmful to their health and a violation of their rights stated in the First and Fifth Amendment.

While the case of Lockyer v Andrade appears at first to be about $150 worth of stolen property, it is about something much deeper and more fundamental to law and ethics. The determination in Lockyer v Andrade was that imprisoning someone for life on a theft case was acceptable. Additionally, the size of the theft was considered—could someone really serve life in prison because of a hundred and fifty dollar’s worth of videos? The answer is yes they can be and it is not even considered cruel and unusual, because it marks a history of criminal behavior and a complete lack of recidivism. The law in question is a “three strikes” law, which stipulates that a criminal who is charged a third time with a felony crime can be sentenced to life in prison.

The court here looks to the actual result of the disputed action and whether it advances or prohibits religion. It held that the alleged effect must be seen,” from the eyes of a reasonable observer, informed and aware of his surroundings”. This objective reasonable observer must see a message of endorsement to the religion by the government. “the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” Also, not any benefit transferred to a religious source constitutes the unconstitutionality status. Rather, the benefit must be direct and substantial. “Whatever benefit to one faith or religion or to all religions inclusion of the crèche in the display effects is indirect, remote, and incidental, and is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion “.

Robert Yoho, 25, of 315 N. Spring St., Loudonville, previously pleaded guilty to a single count of improperly furnishing firearms to a minor.

Facts: States were looking at the lottery as an opportunity to raise their total revenue in hope to fund expensive work projects. While some states viewed the lottery as an asset, the other side viewed the lottery as harmful to families, the poor, and to public morals. The dispute led to the Federal Lottery Act of 1895, which was enacted by Congress to prohibit the buying and selling of lottery tickets across state lines. Charles Champion proceeds to ignore the Federal Lottery Act and is indicted by U.S. Marshall Ames for attempting to smuggle tickets of the Pan-American Lottery Company, from Texas to California. Champion believes his indictment is unconstitutional, claiming the Commerce Clause does not have power

In Berghuis v,Thompkins in a 5 to 4 majority ruling, The U.S Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in both of its rulings and reversed their decision. They stated that when it came to the Miranda issue, Thompkins was provided with a written copy of his Miranda rights in which a portion of it he read aloud. The interrogation began and at no point did the defendant invoke his right to remain silent nor have an attorney present during questioning. The Supreme Court went on to say that the purpose of the Miranda warning is to ensure that the accused is advised and understands their rights to remain silent and their right to counsel. There was no record to show that Thompkins did not understand his rights and he willing waived

To confirm the above information Mr. Gary Hart was informed of the founding, he immediately initiated an investigation on this matter. Mr. Hart verified the following information and stated that Mr. Shorter is not qualified to perform this type of testing.

It is well settled that the courts of the Commonwealth of PA have held that when commercial uses are proposed to be located in residential neighborhoods, they are nuisances per se or actionable nuisances-in-fact. Indeed, the courts have declared that such commercial intrusions into residential neighborhoods are actionable as nuisances per se prior to their impact to prevent such intrusions. (emphasis added) In the case of Diehl v. Lockard, 254 Pa. Super. 111, 385 A.2d 550 (1978), even a single Pizza Hut restaurant proposed for a residential area was found to constitute a nuisance per se which could be precluded prior to construction.

Order every item on the menu at least once by the end of the thirty days

Do you think an offer was ever made? Why? Emma Johnson’s son in law, Edward Hicks, was her agent to sell the property. Hicks, wrote a letter to several people, including Mellon, people who have previously expressed an interest in the Johnson property. Hicks stated in the letter “Our price is $7,500.” Mr. Hicks also stated, the following in the letter: “I will be interested in hearing from you further if you have any interest in this property, for as I said before, I am advising those who have asked for an opportunity to consider it.” Mr. Hick, advises in the letter that he has sent out the letter to several people. Meaning those who are still interested in the Nahant cottage should to contact him. Mr. Mellon’s telegrammed Mr. Hicks, expressing