Supreme Court Case Summary

The Entertainment Software Association have fought to overturn the Brown case and similar laws involving the ban of violent video games (Video Software Dealers Ass 'n, et al. v. Schwarzenegger). The ESA won all of these previous cases based on the fact of the

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

this type of proposition is not new to the voters of california. In the past several

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.

The Morse v. Frederick landmark Supreme Court case paved the way for the manner in which authority intervention can occur within the public school setting. As the case made its way from district court, to appellate court, to the final Supreme Court destination, it saw many opinions, differing verdicts, and arguments. Through this process, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morse, which mirrored my opinions and understanding of the case.

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

The case, Murray vs. Pearson had been attacking the school legally since that summer and successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.

To reiterate, the Supreme Court majority in the case, properly and professionally interpreted the Bill of Rights regarding the right to privacy. It is logical and imperative that the citizens are given a sense of liberty when it comes to their personal lives and this does not affect another citizen directly. If there was no sense of privacy, then we would live in a country where the government would hold all the power and eventually control our lives. This is most definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of those documents was to limit the government from having all the power over its citizens which is why the colonies decided to break from the tyranny of the British. Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Connecticut law, the government would have had the power to now

In this proceeding, the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs which were a devastating blow to the Constitution. The Court of Appeal of California reversed the trial court’s ruling on

This court case took place in California and dealt with a federal issue. California passed a “compassionate use act” that allowed medical marijuana for use. The defendants were arrested under federal DEA laws but were compliant with the state laws. The defendant argued that congress had violated their interstate commerce authority. The issue was whether or not congress could regulate homegrown medical marijuana to be used at home. The law upheld yes, congress can regulate interstate actions where the behavior in a person could have an impact on commerce. The Federal government cannot distinguish from marijuana being grown in someones house and sold into interstate commerce. In order to fully regulate, congress must be able to control the marijuana grown in ones own home (Gonzales v

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

The important facts regarding Ron D. Meyer versus Race City Classics, LLC are as follows: Mr. Meyer a lover of classic cars came across a 1970 Ford Mustang on the classic cars website being sold by Race City Classics, LLC, a North Carolina based company. Mr. Meyer initiated contact with Mr. Thomas D. Alphin, one of the owners in order to purchase this classic car. All transactional discussions were made by email or telephone. A price of $21,000 was agreed upon, in addition to the shared expense of having the vehicle shipped to Nebraska, which is Mr. Meyer’s state of residence. Mr. Meyer purchased this vehicle solely to enter it into car shows. Funds were wired to Race City Classics, LLC and the vehicle was delivered.

California’s State Legislature’s session for the year ended September 30th, which was the deadline for Governor Jerry Brown to sign or veto any bills sent to his desk. A handful of those bills came from the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), which represents employees in a wide range of employment cases. The governor signed the majority, all but two, of CELA’s workplace bills. Some of the signed bills include:

The judicial nomination process has changed since 1985 because of Robert Bork which forced presidents to appoint noncontroversial judges. Also, senatorial courtesy has become a major step in the nomination process. A blue slip is something the senator of the state that a judge is from to either confirm or deny them.

I selected the oral argument in the United States Supreme Court case Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (argued, October 2014). This argument was presented on October 15, 2014. First I will provide a summary of the prosecution history behind this case. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA created a multiple sclerosis drug called Copaxone and subsequently obtained a patent for the drug. Sandoz Inc. desired to create a generic version of Copaxone and submitted their request to the Food and Drug Administration. In 2012, Teva sued Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on the grounds of patent infringement. The District Court then considered the patent through claims construction by examining the patent’s plain language and its prosecution history. Then, the court examined expert testimony and the public record to the patent in order to see if the terms were definite. The