Susie V. Paul's Case

On June 7, 1892, the law was tested again, when Homer Adolph Plessey, an “octoroon”, a very fair person with white features, purchased a ticket and boarded the Louisiana railroad with the consent of the Citizens Committee with the express purpose of violating the Separate Car Act. He sat in the “whites- only section” and when his ticket was collected by the conductor, Homer Adolph Plessey informed the conductor that he was 7/8 white and was not going to sit in the “black-only car.” Arrested and jailed, Plessey as released on $500 bail the next day. A White New York lawyer, Albion Winegar Tourgee, was retained. Plessey’s case was heard one month later before John Howard Ferguson. Tourgee argued the violation of the 13th and 14th amendments before Justice Ferguson. Tourgee’s argument was for absolute equality of all races. However, on May 18, 1896, Justice Brown, by a vote of 7 to 1, ruled in favor of the State of Louisiana upholding the constitutionality of state laws under the doctrine of “separate but equal" that justified a system of

In the city of San Francisco, California, of 1880, there was an ordinance passed; stating that all laundry businesses are required to be in brick buildings, not in wooden ones. Seemingly, it seems that the dictum was established because of the possible chances of fire hazards with wooden buildings. There were 240 laundry businesses out of commission, while 69 other laundry businesses, wooden ones, were able to stay afloat. Now, what’s the difference between the two? The major difference is that the 240 owners (that were arrested) were Chineses and the the 69 owners (the ones that should’ve been charged as well) were white. This led to the court case, Yick Wo V. Hopkins,when Yick Wo was arrested because of he voiced his opinions, petitioning

The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States of America. With this title they have the final say about the decisions for the country. However the Supreme Court can make mistakes and have so before. The case considered the worst Supreme Court decision among many scholars is the Dred Scott V. Sanford case from the pre-civil war era. In which time slavery was a very hot topic between the states. In this case it was determined that a slave was not only not a citizen of the United States but also property (our documents). This court ruling made useless of the Missouri compromise of 1850 which made states above the 36°30’ line Free states and all below the line slaves states (History). This decision was eventually overturned by the Civil War amendments the 13th and 14th which stated that slavery is illegal in all states not only ones in rebellion and that all people born in the united states are citizens including people of color (our documents).

Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

Dred Scott, an enslaved African American from Virginia, worked most of his life on a cotton plantation in Alabama owned by Army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. Scott went along with his owners to Illinois and later out to the Wisconsin Territory, where the act of slavery was illegal. Later on, the family moved back to Missouri where the doctor eventually died. After this experience, Dred Scott, with the help of antislavery lawyers and his old owners, filed for his freedom. Scott felt that he was a free man due to him once living in a free area for four years. Years passed until one fateful day when Scott’s case reached the Supreme Court.

May it please the court, I come here today to address an issue that is central to the constitutional foundations of our nation: that is, the ongoing debate regarding the First Amendment, religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Specifically I wish to discuss the current controversy that involves the matter of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley.

After reading about this case, I immediately could tell Conley suffered from some sort of mental health issues within himself, which have not been addressed. Conley seemed to have been suffering

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

The issue in this case is whether the state of Hamilton should dismiss the charges on the basis of the insanity defense?

Hazel V. Carby was born on January 15, 1948 in Oakhamton, Devon, Great Britain. Carby, chair of the African American contemplates office at Yale University, is a spearheading pundit in the field of black women's liberation. Her first book, Reconstructing Womanhood: The Emergence of the Afro-American Woman Novelist, was an early and to a great degree persuasive study on black women essayists. Carby took after this with Race Men: The Body and Soul of Race, Nation, and Manhood, an investigation of sexism inside of the African American race. Her latest book, Cultures in Babylon: Black Britain and African America is a gathering of expositions on different subjects, composed in the course of the most recent 20 years. She earned a showing endorsement

As all the claimants here are secondary victims, they must all show that the psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable, meaning that someone of ordinary fortitude or “customary phlegm” would have got a psychiatric illness due to the situation. Then all claimants must satisfy three “control mechanisms”, established in Alcock.

The mental anguish that he has had to go through and the pain and suffering that he has had to endure are also grounds for compensatory damages. Chapter 12 also covers punitive damages. These damages are fines that the court may impose on the company or individual in an effort them for the neglect. The company will undoubtedly be sued for negligence.

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by