Sampson V. Channell Case Study

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

Christopher Simmons was 17 years old when he committed murder, he was arrested in September of 1993 after bragging to his school mates about killing an individual. Simmons thought because of his age the court will be lenient on him. The jury easily found him guilty, he was facing the death penalty. His attorney argued that the courts should take his age into consideration when sentencing Simmons, after all he was a minor when the murder was committed he was not old enough to vote or legally by a drink. The jury sentenced Simmons to death by lethal injection the deciding factor for them was the brutal nature that the crime of how the crime was committed. His case was then appealed to the Supreme court his attorney’s citing his

A state court may respond in various ways to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that raises issues of federal

**c. If there is a conflict between a state statute and a federal statute, the federal statute

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Frontiero v. Richardson case occurred in 1973, putting it in the middle of the second wave of feminism. This was a time of women’s marches and advocates for equal rights. Opposed to the first wave of feminism the second wave was more inclusive to women of color. Most likely because it was happening at the same time as the Civil rights and Chinco movements. Along with this, the second wave focused more on equality in the workplace and reproductive rights, whereas the first wave was more focused on voting rights. During this time period, the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan was popularized encouraging women the challenge the “homemaking rules” and the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was formed. Along with this, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was passed just one year before in 1972. Overall the 1960s and 70s were a time of great progression for equal rights.

Procedural History: The federal court refused to hear the case because it is in question whether or not

The court decided to overthrow the defendant Mark Steverson's motion to quash stating that California is allowed to have personal authority over this case since an out-of-state law firm who hired an attorney licensed only in the State of California worked for its citizens under its government and jurisdiction. The defendant was unsuccessful in proving any compulsory action that would overthrow the power of personal jurisdiction for California and instead ruled in favor for Shawn Simons.

Christopher Simmons a 17-year-old junior in high school at the time murdered Shirley Crook, one early September morning (Oyez, p.1). Simmons was briefly acquainted with Crook previously from a past occurring car accident that had involved them both. Furthermore, Christopher did not plan alone how he wanted to accomplish his crimes. Simmons two friends Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, 15 and 16 agreed to aid Simmons in accomplishing his plan due to Simmons insisting they would get away with charges due to being minors (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.3). The three friends met around 2am September 9th; however at the last minute Tessmer left the scene, backing out of the murder plan. Nevertheless, Simmons and Benjamin gained access to Crook’s home through a window left open, which allowed them to unlock the back door. Mrs. Crook was in her bedroom at the time and the two juveniles duct taped her: eyes, mouth and hands closed (Roper v.

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

Roper v. Simmons was a supreme court case that was decided in 2004 which dealt with whether it is against the constitution, and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, the execute someone who is under the age of 18. This case was particularly important as it dealt with something that many people were against entirely: the death penalty. A variation of this issue was decided nearly twenty years earlier in Thompson v. Oklahoma when it was decided in a five-to-three ruling that it was not constitutional to execute anyone under the age of 16. There have also been many other landmark cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain parties such as in Atkins v. Virginia which was decided just three

227 Kan. 780; 610 P. 2d 580; 1980 Kan. LEXIS 280; 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1362

Re: Whether the trial court acted appropriately in excusing Mr. Eldridge form paying $3,500 accrued in child support.

Whenever an appellate court reverses a trial court decision, it instructs that court to rehear the case using the correct law and procedures. If the court sees that a “gross miscarriage of justice” is being done or that an error was obviously committed, they will usually overturn the trial court’s decision (Coffin, 85). In the vast majority of cases, the decision of a Court of Appeal is final. The state Supreme Court does not review the vast majority of cases – it steps in to resolve new or disputed questions of law. It is also the highest state appellate court for civil matters (supreme.courts.state

2. Describe briefly the history of the litigation of this case (which courts heard the case, which way did they rule, what court is now deciding the case, which judges are hearing the case in this court)?