United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Madison court case was filed on February 11th, 1803 and settled on February 24th, 1803. The court case was ultimately decided by Marshall Court. Marbury v. Madison is arguably the most important Supreme Court case in US history. By introducing the principle of judicial review and the ability of the court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, it has constrained Congress from enacting radical legislation that would have hurt the nature of our nation. Judicial review is the ability of a court to examine

During the course of the past few decades, the United States of America faced hundreds of issues that impact the nation’s view of leadership. Some people of the United States believe that the issues that face America involves those in office, while others believe that the issue is structural. In the case of America today, there is a momentous structural difficulty in our voting system. Furthermore, the most distinct problem that the United States handles today is gerrymandering. Throughout this essay

The United States Supreme Court refused to enter into the political process of redistricting in Colegrove v. Green() stating, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.”() In Baker v. Carr() twenty years later, the Court changed its mind, entering the redistricting arena. Ever since entering the “political thicket,” the Court has continuously failed to find a “judicially discernible and manageable standard” of the legality of gerrymandering. () Legal standards have been proposed by academics

Patton v. United States of America Football Rugby USA was a Maryland court case brought forth by the relatives of Donald Patton in which they argue that the negligence of the defendants lead to Patton’s death. The incident in question occurred on June 17, 2000, when Patton was watching his son, Robert, play rugby in a tournament sanctioned by the defendants. The day of the incident was riddled with thunderstorms and most referees had chosen to postpone their matches. The referee of the plaintiff’s

government to apply to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a warrant. The warrant authorized the use of an electronic tracking device on Jones’s Jeep Grand Cherokee, which was registered in his wife’s name. The warrant was issued and authorized installation of the device in the District of Columbia and within 10 days. Officers decided on the 11th day to install the GPS underneath of his vehicle while it was in a public parking lot in Maryland. This device tracked Jones’s

“the small states wanted equal representation in a one chamber legislature; this was put forth as the New Jersey Plan” and “the more populous states, on the other hand, supported the Virginia Plan that proposed a two chamber legislature.” (pg.248) The Virginia Plan proposed that the “lower chamber would have state representation on the basis of state population; this chamber would then select an upper chamber.” (pg.248) In order to find a compromise for both populous and small states, they established

The United States (US) Constitution establishes the rights and duties for US Citizens and all residents in the country. Regular issues mostly brought before courts are alleged violations of citizens’ rights. To some extent, it is confusing to determine whether a citizen’s constitutional rights have been violated or not; decisions may be appealed simply due to incomprehension. The First Amendment granted freedom of religion, press, speech to every citizen, and established the secular nature of country

Introduction Throughout the United States, there exists Federal and state laws that seek to seek to control given categories of over the counter drugs (Paul-Emile, 2010). The outcome of such efforts is the formulation of drug control policies that despite their goodwill and intention end up creating new sets of challenges for the producers, distributors, and consumers of the drugs (Lessenger & Feinberg, 2015). Like many other states, the state of West Virginia has moved to put in place legislations

1970’s the United States Supreme Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included: Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had the right to suppress evidence. Brady v. Maryland In Brady v. Maryland, the United

Amendment. James Obergefell and John Arthur James, who were legally married in Maryland in 2013, filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for charging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates on July 19, 2013, and the case was assigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. On July 22, 2013, Judge Black agreed a temporary restraining order that required the state to recognize the marriage of Mr. Obergefell and Mr. Arthur on Mr. Arthur’s