Oregon Law Case Study

If you are unsure as to why the US should have mandatory recycling, just look to a future without it. This future would be at the very least, dreary and doomed. Garbage in the gutters, spills on the streets, and filth on the freeways. There would probably be little to no life other than humans and even then, Humanity’s days would be numbered. Do you really want to live in a world without a solid amount of plants and animals to provide air and food for us? Each human ends up making about 4 lbs of trash each day. There’s around 7 billion people on Earth; if everyone puts their waste in the garbage, they would create 31 BILLION pounds of waste in landfills across the globe every single day (“What if everyone stopped recycling). That is an insane number! We can’t let that amount of trash exist if we wish to have any sort of positive future.

b. The court rejects the previous test used to decide Free Exercise cases, the Sherbert test. The state no longer had to prove a “compelling interest” for legislation nor that it was the “least restrictive means” of regulation.

After the death of Senator Sam Foley, Hubert Hopper, a governor, was pressured to select a newly appointed senator.

Riley vs. California is one of the most imporntant supreme court cases during the 21st century. If ruled the in favor of the state of California it would fundmentaly change the fourth amendment officers would be able to search people’s phones with no other evidence other than they thought

The previous cases have established that the reasoning in the Reynolds cases as applied to similar situations is flawed and cannot hold water. However, in 1990 in the case of Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, The Supreme Court rejected this “balancing of interest” test that was found in Sherbert and Yoder. The Smith case involved the firing of two members of the Native American Church for ingesting peyote for sacramental purpose. After seeking unemployment benefits, the State of Oregon rejected their claims on the ground that consumption of peyote was a crime. The Supreme Court of Oregon, applying the Sherbert test, held that the denial of benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First

Maine Legislation is currently facing the task of deciding to ban flame retardant chemicals as proposed by Legislative Document 182 (LD182) (Kumiega, W. 2017, January 24). The environmental activist group Prevent Harm in conjunction with a group of Maine Firefighters have proposed LD 182, banning the sale of new furniture treated with any flame retardant chemicals. (Carrigan, D.2017, February 27) Risking the impact of sales and profits to businesses of Maine and the purchase price for Maine consumers. should Maine ban the sales of new household furniture manufactured with flame retardant chemicals?

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

The $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit (Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) that hit the State Bar of California echoes allegations made by the bar’s former executive director pointing towards rampant ethical violations. Plaintiff Sonja Oehler’s LinkedIn profile lists her previous title as the bar’s former administrative specialist. Rather than being let go from her position for a lack of ability or dedication to the job or a necessary reduction in staff, Oehler alleges that she was fired from her job because she knew too much about rampant ethical violations: deceit, deception, incompetence and falsification of issues on the part

In the midst of the Lochner era, many men, women, and children were forced to work long hours with minimal pay. The national government struck down state laws that standardized work regulation in order to promote a free economy. However, a new work precedent was set when Muller v. Oregon was decided upon. In Muller v. Oregon, Justice Josiah Brewer, along with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court, decided to enforce a labor law on the basis of sex. Curt Muller was fined for forcing a woman to work more than ten hours and the Supreme Court upheld the charge because women are perceived as physically weaker than males at the time. (Brewer 82). This case used the hegemonic idea of the male patriarch in order to support the usage of labor

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 “.

Facts: Parties: Mitchell (M), Neff (N), Pennoyer (P). Land was sold at an auction to allow M to collect on a judgment he won by default. The judgment arose because N did not pay attorney fees owed to M. M won by default because N did not appear in court. However, M, who lived in Oregon, published notice of the matter in an Oregon newspaper, not in California. N lived in California. The Oregon court placed the judgment against land N owned in Oregon, which was sold to a buyer called P. M was paid from the sale of the property, but years later N sued the buyer to get his land back.

The Missouri Supreme Court in O'Grady explained how the Missouri wrongful death statute should be applied. The O'Grady Court rejected the traditional notions that a wrongful death claim is a "derivative claim" or an "independent claim" (similar to what the defendants are alleging). Instead, it clearly held that: "a cause of action for wrongful death will lie whenever the person injured would have been entitled to recover from the defendant but for the fact that the injury resulted in death.

Brittney Lu DOC 2-Professor Gagnon TA: Alina Mendez (Section B10) February 9, 2015 Paper Number One: Muller v. Oregon At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

In 1995, a dispute between two men ended in fatality and laid groundwork guaranteeing confidentiality between therapists and patients. During the ensuing trial, the officer inadvertently helped to establish confidentiality rights while fighting to conceal her own medical history. The case bounced through several courts and eventually the highest court

Original Bottle Bill vs Expansion The original bottle bill was passed in 1981, after being vetoed by Governor Ed King. Three years after the bottle bill passed, Massachusetts had recycled thirty five billion containers ( ). MassPrig led a coalition to gain legislature support to ensure the passing of the bottle bill. The bottle bill was created into three sections, Chapter 94 Section 321, Chapter 94 Section 322, and Chapter 94 Section 323. Section 321 laid out the definitions for the legal terms used to create the concepts in the two sections that follow. Section 322 states the bottle deposit amount and what it covers. Section 323 and it’s sub-sections outlined the provisions for the distributors to follow when selling plastic containers, the appropriate way to accept recyclable items from a consumer, and what the state would do with business that are below their quota ( ). In 2003, Mitt Romney led an effort to utilize forfeited nickel deposits as a supplement to the state’s general fund instead of the environmental funded created under the original bottle bill.