Robert W. Matthews Case Analysis

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

The first witness shown on the stand in the documentary was James Stephens. He was the husband of the victim, Mary Ann Stephens. Mr. Stephens was the crucial witness in this case, because he was the only witness. He claimed in his testimony that Brenton Butler murdered Mary Ann Stephens three feet away from his face. Approximately three hours after the incident, he was able to identify Butler as the culprit from fifty feet away. However, the defense attorney was able to pick highlight multiple problems during the cross-examination. The entire incident took place within a five second window. The defendant was wearing a t-shirt with a prominent logo when he was arrested. Mr. Stephens did not mention the logo to police, and incorrectly stated that the shirt had a collar. It was later learned when a second suspect was arrested for the crime, that Mary Ann Stephens was shot after she spilled her coffee on the shooter. James Stephens never mentioned once mentioned this.

Should a person with an incurable condition that is suffering be allowed to cease treatment and let die? The majority of people would answer yes, because allowing someone to die by natural causes is not seen as morally wrong however administrating a lethal injection to end suffering is seen as a cruel action and is considered inhumane. Letting someone die by not furthering treatment is called passive euthanasia, active euthanasia in contrast is consciously killing someone. But according to philosopher James Rachels, in “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” argues by using some examples, that both passive and active euthanasia should be weighed the same.

What alternatives are available to Brent in regards to the audit of payables? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

The Dred Scott case came at a very turbulent time in American history. It came

This case is about Dave Armstrong, a 29 year old second year MBA student of Harvard Business School. Immediately after his graduation from a small liberal arts college in Texas, he started working for Thorne Enterprises as a computer Programmer. After eighteen months in the job, he quit to go into life insurance business in Amarillo. He applied to Harvard Business school but hadn’t considered what he would do, once accepted, he decided to go there as he and his wife wouldn’t have to compromise on their lifestyle as he would still be receiving renewal income from his old policy holders.

Robert Matthews personal hardships started at an early age when both his parents passed away, thus leaving

In the United States we have had a lot of land mark cases for unfair or unconstitutional treatment. Plaintiff Charles Baker shows a good example of how his experience was unconstitutional. Plaintiff Charles Baker was a Republican who lived in Shelby County and Tennessee. He had served as the mayor of Millington, Tennessee near Memphis. The Tennessee State Constitution requires that legislative districts for the Tennessee General Assembly would be redrawn every ten years according to the federal census. Which is to provide districts of substantially equal population. Baker's complaint was that Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901 in response to the 1900 census.

William Marbury was one of the justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury’s nomination was part of the “midnight appointments” process. They had been nominated by President John Adams and affirmed by the “lame-duck” Senate however Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver four of the signed and sealed commissions. President Thomas Jefferson informed secretary of state, James Madison, to hide the commission from William Marbury so that Marbury and colleagues get dismantled of their positions. Therefore, Marbury issued a writ of mandamus as a petition to the Supreme Court to Madison enforcing the delivery of his commission. The case relied on upon the Court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to Secretary of State Madison

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens claimed that a 1901 law aimed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was practically disregarded. Baker's suit described how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored substantial economic progress and population changes within the state. The plaintiff contested the malapportionment of state legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court did not agree and held that the state legislature was responsible for such a decision. Specifically, the court held that the question was a political one. The plaintiff appealed.

Defendants, RICHARD DIAZ and CHARLES LOGAN, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s liability under a civil action using 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, former correctional officers, engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with Plaintiff, an inmate, depriving her of her right under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to remain free from cruel and unusual punishment. In further support of this Summary Judgment requesting that Plaintiff’s request for relief be denied, the Defendants respectfully refer the Court to this Memorandum. As grounds therefore, Defendants state the following:

As Matthews grew up, he would also deal with many hardships that seemed to be impossible to overcome throughout his life. His mother and father passed away, “leaving him along with his four brothers and five sisters (57).” Matthews would be taken in by a future ruling elder in John Maxwell. He would agree to instruct him until the age of 21 in exchange for farm labor. At one point, he would also be brought in by Edward Cook, another elder, who taught him the craft of carpentry but would leave him abruptly for what seemed as truly unknown reasons, with records not indicating a fall-out or argument.

This court case is in regard to the rock group, “The Slants”. The lead singer of the group, Simon Tam, decide to choose this moniker, because it was intended to regain the term’s meaning, and remove the negative connotation associated with the word. Tam’s intention was to the shift the moniker away from being a derogatory term towards Asian persons. Moreover, Tam attempted to gain federal registration of the moniker through The Patent and Trademark Office. However, the PTO denied the application. The office used the Lanham Act provision, which states trademarks that disparage any individual deal or alive from being registered. The case moved to the Federal Court. Here, the trademark was denied once again under the Disparagement Clause. Continuing on, the en banc Federal Circuit then found the disparagement clause to be unconstitutional on the grounds of the Free Speech Clause protected in the First

David Peterson will likely not be held liable for the actions of his son. Courts have determined that a person should not be held liable when an event is not reasonably anticipated. In Smith v. Allen, a child, age eleven, injured the plaintiff, age nine, while swinging a golf club that was left in the backyard by his father. The plaintiff claimed that the father was negligent and liable due to knowing the club was left outside, that his child would play with it, there was no warning against using the club, and improper use could lead to injury. The father demurred claiming the complaint was not sufficient. This demurrer was later sustained as the court held that the action was “not reasonably to be anticipated at all” making the father not

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”