Supreme Court Case Summary

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

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

Facts: Based on the facts presented, the family was vacationing at the Wildhorn Ranch during August of 1986. William and Jared Geringer was involved in a paddle boating accident that the resort offered as an amenity, that resulted in the death of William and Jared Geringer. The facts in the case focused on the duties of the owners, the involvement each defendant had in the operations of the ranch and if their actions resulted in negligence. The courts focused on the maintenance and conditions of paddleboats used at the resort. In this case it was determined that the defendant Les Bretzke was the independent contractor that was responsible for the construction and repairs of items throughout Wildhorn Ranch which included the paddleboats used by William and Jerad Granger.

On July 17, 2014, 43 years old black man named Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes illegally on Staten Island. As the polices approach Erica to make their arrest, he raised both hands in the air and requested for both officers to not touch him. Meanwhile, the second officer came behind Eric and put him in a choke hold in order to restrain the 350 pounds man down to the ground. After he was restrained to the ground both officers roll him over onto his stomach. Within seconds after being roll over to his stomach Erica Garner repeatedly shouted to the police officer, "I can't breathe!", while he was laying on his stomach face down to the sidewalk pavement. Suddenly, the 350-pound black male died of compression of the neck from the officer's

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

For this assignment I got the opportunity to witness the Florida Supreme Court case Thomas Theo Brown V. State of Florida presided over by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and a panel of other justices. This case was regarding the appeal of Thomas Theo Brown, a Wendy’s employee who was convicted for fatally shooting his co-worker, Ms. Juanese Miller, back in 2009. He had been sentenced to death following the guilty verdict of first degree murder. Mr. Brown filed a challenge to his conviction, wherein he stated a claim that he should be resentenced due to a lack of objection by his original counsel regarding a claim made by the prosecution. The claim not objected to was that the defendant, Mr. Brown, had premeditated the murder in spite of the fact that he had actually admitted to second degree murder.

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

The Supreme Court ruled announced their ruling on June 28, 1978 but there was not a majority opinion. Four major justices, Rehnquist, Stewart, Burger, and Stevens, voted against the minority admission program for all school because it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The other four justices, Marshall, Brennan, White, and Blackmun, voted that the affirmative action is acceptable within certain areas. However, the plurality opinion was given by Justice Powell. This gave the ruling a 5-4 in favor of Allan Bakke. Powell gave his opinion that the using racial quotas as the deciding factor of one’s admission was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, affirmative action is permissible by Universities but only if used alongside with other factors. This meant that Universities had to discontinue their quota system for minorities and that UC Davis violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Under these circumstances Allan Bakke was allowed to attend UC Davis.

The discovery of unethical billing alongside unethical accounting practices provoked a chain reaction towards a hospital accountant by the name of Rehberg. An accountant trying to serve justice was entangled in a web of lies. Rehberg vs. Paulk is a very interesting Supreme Court case. Rehberg vs. Paulk embodied much of the injustice that is not presented to the public when sworn officials break the very laws that are supposed to be protected. The Rehberg vs. Paulk case provides controversy among different jurisdictions within the judicial system and gives examples of the different elements of crime within the case.

In Utah a Detective by the name of Douglas Fackrell received a tip of the whereabouts of drug activity taking place. Fackrell over a course of some days watched the house, where he concluded that there was in fact suspicious drug activity taking place. The man who exited the house went by the name of Strieff, who the detective decided to stop and question. By taking Streiff's I.D., Fackrell discovered a traffic warrant meant for Strieff. Under this warrant, the detective then arrested Strieff, and then conducted a search on Strieff due to the arrest. Due to this search, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe inside

Sylvia Burwell Secretary of Health and Human Services Petitioners vs Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation vs Secretary of Health and Human Services (U.S 2014)

This landmark supreme court cases and the constitution focuses on a case involving expressive conduct and what is for many a deeply cherished symbol of America- The U.S. flag. In a closely divided (5-4) ruling, the Supreme Court held that the states could not forbid burning the U.S. flag in protest because doing so would violate the freedom of speech protected by the first

On Dec. 31, 2013, a 70-year-old Norridgewock man died from the wounds he sustained when he was struck by a motor vehicle as he crossed Mercer Road. Even though the district attorney is not prosecuting the driver, a wrongful death and survival suit is being filed by the man’s widow.

Supreme Court reflected and reinforced nationalism during the post-Ghent years, despite the ominous setbacks concerning slavery.

The facts in the Chambers case can be applied to the law in the Model Penal Code. To be convicted of second-degree murder, there must be murder, as well as, additional factors such as extreme emotional or unreasonable belief of justifiable homicide. There must be a sudden intense passion resulting from serious provocation, which can be seen in the Chambers case. Chambers plowed through the Oklahoma State University’s homecoming parade after running a red light and striking a police motorcycle. This tragedy occurred half an hour before Chambers was fired from her part-time job at Stillwater’s Freddy’s Frozen Custard and Steakburgers. What Chambers did in the half hour between her release from her employment and the crash remains unclear, however,