Supreme Court Case: Vincent V. Lake Erie Transp

The trial judge, therefore, entered judgment for plaintiff Foster against defendants Grant and Gray. Grant and Gray appealed.

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

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of the

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Case Name: State of Texas VS. Douglas Nathan Palmer. NO- 6985-C. State’s motion for Judge to disqualify or recuse

Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post- conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County, Perry Parker, Judge. Reversed, in part; remanded, in part; and affirmed, in part.

Haywood brought his case to the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court of New York dismissed Haywood’s complaints; the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed. Following this, Haywood appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and was granted certiorari.

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

The defendants in the district court decisions appealed directly to the Supreme Court, while those (a writ for the reexamination of an action of a lower court).

In order to be able to appeal, we have to find out if there was a legal error that occurred in the trial court, and that such an error was material, thus, it would have changed the outcome of the trial.