Louis V Dermot And Ryland

The landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson is a Constitutional case in which it had to be decided who the constitution meant when it said "all men are created equal." This case is very important to our constitution and to the people being governed by the constitution because it brought up issues that hadn't been discussed in the U.S before. This case shows the degree of federalism and how much the government paid attention to it. The amendments in the constitution do not apply to a simple race or ethnicity. Throughout history laws have been made and destroyed at the cost of colored people, in the Plessy v. Ferguson case it is shown that due to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments all citizens have equal protection under the law. Plessy was denied his right, as well as other colored people because they belonged to different bathrooms, they belonged to different train cars and they belonged to different water fountains at this time in history, but Plessy'

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

In 2000, the Arlington Police Department received information stating that Earnest Leon Voyles had exchanged emails that contained sexual content with a fifteen year old girl from London, England. According to this informant the fifteen year old girl, “Amy Chang”, had been solicited for sex by Voyles and had arranged to meet with her in London to engage in a sexual relationship. Sergeant James Crouch of the Arlington Police Department was unsuccessful in contacting “Amy Chang” to verify the arrangement but was not successful, however, he was successful in verifying that Voyles was working as a teacher at a junior high located in Arlington, Texas.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

On June 7, 1892, the law was tested again, when Homer Adolph Plessey, an “octoroon”, a very fair person with white features, purchased a ticket and boarded the Louisiana railroad with the consent of the Citizens Committee with the express purpose of violating the Separate Car Act. He sat in the “whites- only section” and when his ticket was collected by the conductor, Homer Adolph Plessey informed the conductor that he was 7/8 white and was not going to sit in the “black-only car.” Arrested and jailed, Plessey as released on $500 bail the next day. A White New York lawyer, Albion Winegar Tourgee, was retained. Plessey’s case was heard one month later before John Howard Ferguson. Tourgee argued the violation of the 13th and 14th amendments before Justice Ferguson. Tourgee’s argument was for absolute equality of all races. However, on May 18, 1896, Justice Brown, by a vote of 7 to 1, ruled in favor of the State of Louisiana upholding the constitutionality of state laws under the doctrine of “separate but equal" that justified a system of

We discussed the recent mob uprising and the state of unrest in the community. It was the judgment of all present that the life of the defendant, even if the wrong man, could not be saved; that an appeal would so inflame the public that the jail would be attacked and perhaps other prisoners executed by violence. In the opinion of all of us a case was presented where the defendant, now that he had been convicted by a jury, must die by the judgment of the law, or else, if his case were appealed, he would die by the act of the uprising of the people (Pfeifer, “United”).

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

The Supreme Court has deemed it acceptable to use the death penalty in certain situations. Many states have a problem with this punishment although it was upheld as fair application in some instances by a court that is above theirs. In applying this punishment, there is due process to ensure that no innocent citizen should be wrongfully accused for a crime that they didn’t commit. As in any court case that ends up punishing someone, due process is an important and death penalty is a viable punishment as any other.

One of the most significant court cases in the 1800s was the Dred Scott v. Sanford case in 1857 (Kelly, 2014). This case gripped the nation right as the North and the South became further and further apart. The Scott v. Sanford case deepened the boundary closer to Civil War. Scott v. Sanford drew in everyone’s attention and led to the rally of a lifetime. The case created problems and changes in the United States and the significance of this case is still awed by today.

Millions of people go to court to fight for something they believe in or disagree with, but don't get their voices heard. The constitution made amendments to ensure fairness and it's not right if we don't have those fairnesses. In Brown v board of education and Plessy v Ferguson they were fighting to have rights and fairness, but Plessy v Ferguson got their rights heard right away and the Brown v board of Education didn't get there voices heard in till many years after they went to court. In the 1890's Plessy got on the wrong train car and decided he didn't want to move. The authorities said that Plessy would have to pay $25 or go to jail for 20 days, so when he refused they put him in jail. This violated the 14th amendment because, its unequal that white children had better things. In 1950-1951 segregation was a big problem even with little kids going to different schools just because of the

In a excerpt from the “Second Letter to Charles V” (1520), the author Hernan Cortés describes to King Charles V the wonders and happenings that occur in the city of Temixtitlan. Cortés’s purpose is to inform the the King that even through the city is inferior to Spanish culture, Temixtitlan is very advanced and is worthy of being conquered. His use of diction, imagery, parallelism, and coordinating conjunctions convey not only a admirative tone, but also an authoritative one in order to persuade the reader to commend the Aztecs, but disapprove their way of life.

discrimination . The impact of the Plessy decision would lead to even more segregate public places including our topic the schools. In a brave lonely single dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan asserted that the Constitution was “color‐blind.” Ironically, Justice Harlan was a former slave holding Southerner too. Largely ignored at the time, Plessy would become the favored precedent for a long line of “separate, but equal” decisions upholding racially driven separation of society. The separate facilities were usually vastly different in quality, despite the injunction of the Plessy case that they be equal. The Supreme Court ruling accepted separateness as long as it was “substantially equal. ” Thereby giving the Court’s stamp of approval to the idea that segregation and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were compatible henceforward. Although the long, hard‐fought battle to dismantle the Jim Crow system in law as it was is now be over. The

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.