The Landmark Case Of Williams V Roffey

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

The city of Atlanta had experienced over a two year period from 1979-1981 of egregious acts of murders committed on more than twenty African American adolescent males. However, Wayne Williams, a native of Atlanta, was the center of law enforcement investigation, which implicated his involvement in at least two of the children murders around that time. Nonetheless, law enforcement linked Wayne Williams to those murders because of detailed evidence found on the victims, which was later discovered that evidence was from Williams apartment (Curriden, 1992). Furthermore, the evidence which was found was a unique fiber from the carpet of Williams apartment and the number of people having this fiber was very small in number (Curriden, 1992)). The fiber evidence was the main part of the case to associate Williams with

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Pamela Powers on December 24, 1968 was kidnapped from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa and then murdered. A 14-year-old boy reported having had helped Robert Anthony Williams (defendant) car door and said he saw two skinny and white legs. His car and Pamela’s clothing were found the next day. William was found two days later in a town 70 miles away. During transport one of the officers inculcated William to tell them where to find the body in order for the child’s parents to have a Christian burial. William gave in and led them to the body consequently admitting to knowledge of the crime. In that same day (December 26), the Iowa

Facts: After Williams was arrested for the disappearance of a 10 year old girl police told his counsel that they would be transporting him from Davenport, Iowa where he was arraigned to Des Moines, Iowa where he was to be held with out questioning him about the case. Eventually after talking with the transporting officer he made incriminating statements and gave information on the area that the body of the child could be found. A large team of volunteers that was actually searching around the area where the body was found was then called off

In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

Tiller Construction Corporation entered into two contracts with Nadler, the CEO of Glenmar, where Tiller would do “the work” for Nadler at Westridge for $637,000 and the other for Tiller to do “the work” for Nadler at Cranberry for $688,800. Nadler agreed to be personally liable to Tiller for the payment of both contracts. When the job was done, Nadler refused to pay the remaining balance of $229,799.46 for the Cranberry project and a remaining balance of $264,273.85 for the Westridge project. So Tiller sued Nadler for the amount owed, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Codelfa Construction (Plaintiff) had a contract with State Rail Authority NSW (Defendant) to excavate the tunnels for the railway in New South Wales. The contract agreed to complete the work in assured dates and finish it within 130 weeks, to finish work Codelfa were suppose to work three shifts a day and 7 days a week; initially Codelfa Construction was working accordingly. The work was to dig a tunnel so offcourse it was very noisy and caused some vibrations which were annoying to the surrounding residents which led to application quite a few application of nuisance and after a while Codelfa Construction had an injunction where they were forced to reduce the work hours by two shifts a day and not working on Sundays. The problem started here as the working hours were reduced so Codelfa Constructions was not able to finish the work in the set period of time which was given according to the contract therefore Codelfa Construction’s budget did exceed than mentioned in the contract and they needed more time to finish the work.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after