The R V Bentham Case

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

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count

The case R.v. Flett, 2013 the defence counsel was Darren M. Sawchuk who represented the accused, Lulonda Lynn Flett and for the Crown Elizabeth Thomson represented the Her Queen The Majesty, Judgement was delivered on June 13 2013. Lulonda Lynn Flett, 41 went to a rooming house located at 288 Austin Street, Winnipeg on July 16th 2011 and set fire to a couch on the front porch. She was angry at her boyfriend’s mother for calling the police as a result of the fight she had with him, she also blamed her because of an arrest warrant, for the fight she had with her boyfriend's sister Lynette. Also Ms. Flett had said that she would “burn the house down” which she said in a fit of uncontrollable anger when she was drunk. Firefighters brought six people out of the

I did go two different courts. Southwark Crown Court which was opened in 1983 is one of those. It contains 15 courts, making it the fourth biggest court in the nation and is outlined as a genuine extortion focus. In England and Wales the crown courts additionally go about as a court of first occasion for serious criminal offences. A case, contingent upon the seriousness can take many deferent routs through the structure of the legal framework. The severe the crime, the higher the court that the trial does settled. My court visit on eighteenth and nineteenth of December 2014 was truly fundamental, keeping in mind the end goal to accomplish a more prominent useful understanding of the different angles and structural type of legitimate framework. A percentage of the procedures that they take after are indeed regulations of Act of Parliament, the lion 's share of which are a piece of the Court Procedures Act 2004.

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.

Supreme Court of the United States decision on the King v. Burwell case was a 6-3 decision in favor of Burwell. One major point that the majority touches upon is the fact that the statement “an exchange established by the state” is in fact an ambiguous statement. The ACA directed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to set up federal exchanges for any state that refuses to set one up. With the specific phrase “such exchange” to define the government's exchange program set up in Virginia means that federally and state run exchanges are interchangeable entities. Now that the phrase had been deemed ambiguous language, the next question to answer is, “whether one of the regulation's permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that

In Bowers v Hardwick, the Court upheld the Georgia law that prohibited the act of sodomy, the Court concluded that the consensual sexual act was not protected under the privacy rights as it was articulated in Griswold and Roe as it showed no similarity to Bowers. Conversely, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court overruled Bowers and declared the Texas law that prohibited “private consensual sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex” (Chemerinsky 881)

Before the commission could be delivered, Adams' term ended and Jefferson became the President. Jefferson's Secretary of State (Madison) refused to honor the commission, saying it wasn't valid because it hadn't been delivered in time.

The 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abington v, Schempp ruled that public schools and personnel could not mandate devotional activities in their classrooms or schools. Justice Clark went on to say that study of religion as a part of human culture and the humanities is well within the guidelines established by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This Supreme Court decision allows for the academic study of religion at all levels of public education. So groups cannot be barred from using public school facilities or other public buildings. The Equal Access Act was passed by the 98th Congress in the 1984 and upheld by the Supreme Court in Board of Education of Westside Community School District v. Mergens (1990). This gave religious groups

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

Following on, The Roskill Committee concluded that a trial by a random jury was not an adequate way of achieving justice in such cases, with many jurors being 'out of their depth', arguing even the most qualified individuals may struggle with the huge amounts of documents presented to them. (Roskill Committee, 1986) However, the Committee was unable to find any precise evidence that showed a higher proportion of acquittals in complex fraud cases than in any other kind of case, with the majority of their conclusions and findings being based on research by Baldwin and McConville in 1979, and yet none of the questionable acquittals reported were related to complex fraud cases. Therefore, this proves to be quite a limited source in showing juries

Blair v Bendix Corp took place in New York State. It was heard by the New York Supreme Court. While OWCO v Newport News Shipbuilding occurred in Virginia and was heard by the US Court of Appeals. ("Blair v Bendix Corp," 1993) ("OWCO v Newport News Shipbuilding," 1993)

The Court adopted this approach in order to not give the national government too much power. I think this approach is desirable only if it is suitable for the wellbeing of the country and its people.