of Right to Counsel In the 16th and 17th century‚ the law did not allow or provide for the use of attorneys in any court case‚ except for treason cases. It wasn’t until the 18th century in which the defendants were allowed to have an attorney. The constitution allowed for the use of attorneys‚ but most defendants represented themselves‚ while
Premium United States Constitution Law United States
The March for Life Protest In 1973‚ Jane Roe filed a court case against Henry Wade in which she accused Wade of impregnating her by sexual assault (Glazer n. pag). During the case‚ the U.S. Supreme Court first argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention abortion‚ but rather it guarantees a privilege to individual freedom under due process (“Supreme Court Rules on Roe V. Wade‚ The” par. 5). The state of Texas argued that it had convincing motivations to protect the life of an unborn child
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
v. Cruikshank (1876). This case took place during the Reconstruction period of the south in Grand Parish‚ Louisiana. During this time there were many changes being made in the state and local government positions. In 1873 the governor of Louisiana appointed a new Judge
Premium United States Constitution United States United States Bill of Rights
there is to know about judicial review. So when it comes to the case of Marbury V. Madison I knew the basics of the case but I did not know the reasons and all the facts. When I picked this case it was out of confusion behind the events that gave the Supreme Court its powers. Through examining the legal‚ environmental and personal perspective of the case we can get to the bottom of why they ruled way they did. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind because it was questioning who had
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Marbury v. Madison
Jonathan Crespo Mr. Mouser Government 5/11/2018 United States v Nixon In the case of United States v. Richard Nixon‚ seven of Nixon’s closest aides were convicted of many crimes in the Watergate affair. The name of the aides that were convicted are John N. Mitchell‚ former Attorney General; H. R. Haldeman‚ John D. Ehrlichman and Gordon C. Strachan‚ former White House aides; Robert C. Mardian‚ a former aide to Mr. Mitchell‚ and Kenneth Wells Parkinson. Nixon was named by the Watergate grand jury
Premium Richard Nixon President of the United States Watergate scandal
1) John G. Roberts‚ Jr. Chief Justice of the United States. Justice Roberts was born on January 27‚ 1955 in Buffalo‚ NY. Roberts was confirmed on May 8‚ 2003‚ and received his commission on June 2‚ 2003 By President George Bush. **Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority‚ 386 F.3d 1148 Involved a 12-year-old girl who was arrested‚ searched‚ handcuffed‚ driven to police headquarters‚ booked‚ and fingerprinted after she violated a publicly advertised zero tolerance "no eating"
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Case #14 Coke vs. Pepsi‚ 2001 Synopsis and Objectives Set in December 2000‚ immediately after the merger announcement between PepsiCo‚ Inc.‚ and the Quaker Oats Company‚ this case asks to examine the implications of the merger for the rivalry between the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo and for value creation by each firm. Because the merger would allow PepsiCo to control Gatorade‚ which held an 83% share in the sports-drink market‚ PepsiCo would further strengthen its already wide lead
Premium Rate of return Coca-Cola Gatorade
allowing Turner to continue to work as a shaker table inspector. When analyzing this case‚ Turner’s medical problems appeared to be limited to her job as a shaker table inspector. She was a qualified individual for the job and received several accommodations under the ADA‚ but her medical problems did not limit any major life sustaining activities. She had difficulty with very few activities. As stated in the case‚ “the activities in which she can participate in are limited and do not require any
Premium Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Disability United States