Maryland Supreme Court Case Summary

In the supreme court decision that was made with the McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the second bank of the United States, Maryland had placed a prohibitive tax on the bank notes. In a branch of the second bank Maryland attempted to impede the operation. This case McCulloch v. Maryland had established two important principles in Constitutional law. The first important thing that it applied was the constitution implied powers for implementing the constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. The second important reason was to state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government. James William McCulloch refused to pay the tax and was appealed to Maryland court because of this and this had begun the trial.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a 36-page dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The first eight pages outline the extensive effort put forth by congress when researching, crafting and updating the 2009 version of the VRA. Justice Ginsburg argues that the question before the court ought to be whether or not congress acted appropriately within the authority granted under the constitution, namely the 15th amendment and the constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause as interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted” to address the issue of discrimination in voting with appropriate legislation. The justice argues that the majority does not follow established precedent or tests when determining the ruling in this case as set out by MuCulloch v. Maryland, Norwest Austin, Katzenberg, or City of Rome. Ginsburg uses these examples to contend that the majority is improperly evaluating the case and creating an entirely new precedent that ignores current case law. Instead of ruling on the constitutional breadth of authority provided by the rationality test and the 15th amendment, the majority has chosen instead to pass judgment on the language in the

Representing over 200 plaintiffs from Kansas, Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. (Conaway, Judith 15), the enormity of the case hung over my head as the train inched closer and closer to the city and the NAACP’s New York office. I flipped over my copy of the New York Times, reading the column about the case once more, “Certainly no lawyer, and practically no member of the bench, had Thurgood Marshall’s grasp of the doctrine of law as it affects civil rights” ("Thurgood Marshall"). I disembarked the “whites-only” car and began my walk towards the NAACP National Office.

The parties are William Marbury and James Madison. William Marbury was commissioned by president Adams as Justice of the Peace, along with many others, on the last day of office. The commission had to be delivered to William Marbury on the same day by John Marshall, the Secretary of State, but that did not happen. The following day Thomas Jefferson, who was from the opposing party, became president and he appointed a new Secretary of State, James Madison. President Jefferson declared the commissions void and they were not delivered to the persons in question including William Marbury, who therefore was not appointed Justice of the Peace as he was promised. William Marbury went to the Supreme Court to ask for a writ of mandamus in order to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commissions. On 24 February 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall, former Secretary of State during president Adams’ term of office, wrote the Court’s decision.

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” This is what the Supreme Court determined in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. Presently churches or religious establishments are tax exempt. Many people vividly oppose the government’s stance on the issue, but though the government does many things wrong, as many will tell you, this is not one one of them.

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

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

Following a half-century hiatus, Judge Alfread Salem Niles of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City conceived the idea to revive the institutions of Baltimore’s law clubs by establishing The Layers’ Round Table in 1911. As one member recounted:

I disagree, each state has the power to create it’s own bank and in McCulloch v. Maryland the rights of the bank were ignored.

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

n some states, studies have been conducted as a result of court cases where the plainti

Thurgood Marshall is a man that went to court for colored kids and white kids to got to the same school. He went to court in October 1967 and won the trial in 1991.

Thurgood Marshall, one of the leaders from NAACP, tested his practice in the Maryland courts. Marshall disputed that Murray, who was African American, was rejected for his race. Marshall argued that the “black” law universities would not be the level education Murray wanted as the University of Maryland School of Law and that the university was violating the United States Supreme Court ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of “separate but equal.” The Baltimore City Court agreed with Marshall and Murray. The law school appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Maryland Court of Appeals forced the law school to allow him to go to school there in 1936. Murray graduated two years

Prosecutors play a critical role in determining a defendant’s guilt. Despite this role, the powers ascribed to prosecutors have long been debated. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the United States Supreme Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included: Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had the right to suppress evidence.

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his