I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially‚ the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through
Premium American Civil War African American Slavery
controversial five to four decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case of Ricci vs DeStefano raises the uncomfortable but common question of how far will employers go to favor one race over another? In other words‚ discrimination was at play in the case‚ in a scenario that will be unexpected to readers. The case of Frank Ricci vs. John DeStefano was established through an invalid act in the case of firefighters‚ promoting firefighters to be precise. The case began in the city of New Haven‚ Connecticut
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Discrimination Civil Rights Act of 1964
CASE ANALYSIS Virginia V. Black In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate‚ and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
King v. Burwell and Judicial Decision-Making Process The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell surrounded the challenge of provision to the Affordable Care Act. The key question the case focused on was whether Obamacare authorized federal tax subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through a state exchange. The challenger‚ King‚ argued the way the law was written can’t allow for states to subsidized insurance through a federal-run exchange. They argued that insurance subsides
Premium United States Constitution United States Law
How to Brief Cases To fully understand the law with respect to business‚ you need to be able to read and understand court decisions. To make this task easier‚ you can use a method of case analysis that is called briefing. There is a fairly standard procedure that you can follow when you “brief” any court case. You must first read the case opinion carefully. When you feel you understand the case‚ you can prepare a brief of it. Although the format of the brief may vary‚ typically it will present the
Premium Law Appeal Tort
CRJU 310 Judge Oberholzer April 12‚ 2009 Mapp v. Ohio * Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts: Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house‚ because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers
Premium Jury United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
upheld in regards to Riggs et al v. Palmer case because one should not be granted inheritance by murdering one’s ancestor. For this reason‚ the New York Court of Appeals has decided on a naturalistic approach‚ which has deemed Elmer Palmer guilty for murdering his grandfather‚ thereby prohibiting Palmer from getting anything from his grandfather’s will. This essentially means that the court argues that judges use their morals in order to determine the outcome of cases. Therefore‚ rejecting the idea
Premium
Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say‚ “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal‚ but it has never said how
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon‚ Dr. Grant informed the patient‚ Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer‚ which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.‚ Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit‚ 2007 550 U.S. 618 (2007) Alito‚ Justice This is an employment discrimination case that was held by the Supreme Court of the United States. District Court found in favor of the Plaintiff awarding back pay and damages. Goodyear Appealed. The issue argued in the Supreme Court claimed all damages void before Sept. 1997 due to statute of limitations placed on discriminatory claims. The court
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Appeal