Essay on U.S. V. Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Complaint for Charge of Accessory after the fact in the crime of Credit Card Fraud

Christopher Simmons, who was seventeen years old, and two of his friends by the name of Charles Benjamin(fifteen years old) and John Tessmer (sixteen years old) had a detailed conversation about committing a murder. Christopher Simmons had a premeditated plan to which included, burglary (breaking and entering), robber and

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

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

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

dealings with members of the Seattle police to secure the release of any of the

clause (ii), and it is simply too unlike the provision's listed examples for the Court to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it. In the Courts opinion In our view, the provision's listed examples— burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives—illustrate the kinds of crimes that fall within the statute's scope. Their presence indicated that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Congress meant the statute to be all encompassing, it is

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American from Southampton, Virginia. Virginia at that time was a slave state. In 1843, Dred Scott traveled with his owner, John Emerson, who was an army surgeon, from a slave sate to Missouri. When John Emerson died in a slave state, Scott and his wife decided to sue to win their freedom in St. Louis federal Court. Because of his race, Dred Scott was denied to sue because he was stateless. The court case was argued on February 11-17th, 1856 and then reargued in December 15-17th. The case was then decided on March 6th, 1857 in the Missouri territory. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court for making their decision was that, enslaved African race were not intended to be included in the constitution, his racial background, and because slaves were considered as properties. So because

In 1934, a farmer named Thomas Lee Causby and his family bought a small farm eight miles west of Greensboro, North Carolina. They raised chickens on their three acre plot and made a living on the proceeds of the meat and eggs. A third of a mile away from Causby’s farm was an airfield. Linley Field, originally a pasture used by barnstormers, had opened in 1927. It was used as a mail stop and the home of the first passenger service in the Triad, until two near-crashes caused it to be ordered closed in 1935. Two years later, it reopened with two new paved, fixed runways —one of which pointed directly at the Causby’s farm. This meant that less than ten percent of the time, depending on the prevailing winds, the small single or double engine private planes using the airport would be taking off or landing right over the Causby’s heads. It could be noisy and distracting, but the planes were few and infrequent enough not to cause a great disturbance to the Causbys or their lives.

discriminatory animus by Cardinal Financial with regard to the declination to make a loan on the original terms. Thus, the circuit court looked correctly to the Substitute Trustees to advance, if it could, a nondiscriminatory reason for the denial.

It was the year of 1857 and a robust wind blew through the South as the air was filled with both victory and horrific disappointment. An ordinary man named Dred Scott began his journey for his rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scott’s struggle for freedom would come to make him one of the most famous plaintiffs in American history and a worldwide symbol for emancipation. Scott happened to be of African descent which was an extremely difficult obstacle to live with in early America. The Dred Scott decision made by the supreme court in March of 1857 negatively impacted the United States by empowering the South, contributing to the secession, and expediting the Civil War.

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

According the scenario, this problem is concerned about distinguishing between the offer and an invitation to treat. The answer need to be consider When a valid offer is made and whether there is an agreement between Necola and Janet by accepting the offer. The main rule is that the acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Until and unless the acceptance is communicated, no contract comes into existence.