Oregon Law Case Study

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

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

The state does not have sufficient support to suspend the licenses of Mr. Jones and Mr. Roberts.

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 that it was in best intrest to them to serach it and you could have done nothing about it and that is a clear violation of the protection of unreasonable search and seizure that the fourth amendment gives us. To understand why this case was so important you have to know the backround of the situation. It started in San Diego were a man named David Riley was pulled over because he was driving with a expired license plate. The police officer during that stop found out that Riley was driving while his license was suspended. The

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

Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards

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 state of Mississippi is taking a step back into the past. The new lesbian, gay, bio-sexual, and transgender law is a law that gives business owners the right to refuse service based on religious objections. House bill 1523: it protects a specific group of beliefs that are commonly expressed by religious conservatives. Second, it states that marriage must be limited to one woman and one man. Sexual activity between two persons is restricted to married couples. Gender is defined at birth by anatomy and genetics. Finally, the bill allows religious organizations, and their employees, for-profit companies, and their employees, and state employees to freely refuse goods, and services to anyone if it would conflict with their sincerely held

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.

I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.

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 the 2014 gubernational election, the second ballot question received plenty of publicity. The bottle bill was up for a referendum, the question was based upon the expansion of the bottle bill. The expansion involved the addition of several different vocabulary terms that were not incorporated in the original bottle bill and adding several clauses to expand the effect of the bill. The opposition believed that expanding the bottle bill is not the solution to the lacking recycling resources available in the Commonwealth. The group for the expansion focused its campaign on the projected impact this would have on littering and the economic benefit. I think both campaigns failed to include recycling in the restaurant industry.