Casey (1992). The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe v. Wade (1973). The issue addressed was‚ if any state can force a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours‚ if married‚ require consent from her husband‚ and‚ if she’s a minor‚ have parental consent (Oyez). The case was a 5-4 decision in favor of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This decision reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. The Court upheld the 24-hour waiting period and the parental consent
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey Roe v. Wade
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller‚ operator
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Moon v Whitehead (2015)‚ is a case dealing with the tort of trespass to person: battery. The appellant‚ Moon‚ appealed the decision of the trial court on the basis of consent. Moon claimed he received adequate consent from the respondent‚ Whitehead‚ while the two were in Sydney attending a work conference. He and the respondent shared an apartment with separate bedrooms for the period of the conference. The respondent pleaded that on 13 August 2007 the appellant came into her bedroom uninvited and
Premium Law Appeal Jury
Lana Phan Case: Dred Scott v. Sandford Facts: This lawsuit involves Dred Scott‚ an African American slave and his owner due to the passing of his previous owner Dr. Emerson‚ John F. A. Sanford. John F.A Sanford is the brother to the wife of Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis on April 6‚ 1846 . Dred Scott’s legal suit is for assault and false imprisonment: “A slave could be punished and kept as property‚ but a free person could not
Premium Slavery in the United States American Civil War Slavery
The Supreme Court case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana deals with the issue of whether or not a distinction based on gender in establishing derivative citizenship for immigrants violates the 5th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The questions presented by this case are: (1) Whether Congress’s decision to require different physical presence requirements for unwed citizen mothers than unwed citizen fathers in order to pass citizenship to a foreign- born child violates the 5th amendment’s guarantee
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Marriage
abide the rules of bearing arms. Militia can be defined as‚ “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers” according to Gary the Gun Nut’s post on Thomhartmann.com. In the District of Columbia v. Heller case‚ gun control was the purpose problem. The case resulted in protecting the “Second Amendment of an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes‚ such as self-defense within the home‚...” in which was a
Premium
The officers were within their scope of duties to initially stop Dickerson in this case due to his suspicious and evasive behavior as he exited the apartment building and saw the officer. To pursue and check him for weapons because of potential criminal involvement was not outside the scope of their duties due to the criminal history
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
ROBERT C. BROWNING V. ARTHUR JOHNSON Project Type: Re writing of judgement Submitted to: Prof . Surabhi Rajapal Faculty‚ Contract law Submitted by: Shubhank Singh Semester II Year I Roll no. 2015- 110 NALSAR University of Law‚ Hyderabad FACTS OF THE CASE: Browning and Johnson went into an agreement of offer whereby Browning was to offer his practice and hardware to Johnson. Both sides and their lawyers trusted the agreement made to be totally legitimate and enforceable. Prior to the agreement’s
Premium Contract Consideration
Obergefell V. Hodges “It is better to be hated for what you are then to be loved for what you are not‚” this was said by Andre Gide and there has never been a more true statement. In this paper the topic of Obergefell V. Hodges will be discussed. Obergefell V. Hodges is the court case that talks about gay marriage. Many are against the topic‚ but maybe they should open their minds a little more and accept that love is love. Though many know of the court case‚ not all people know the history of
Premium Homosexuality Same-sex marriage Marriage
517 20 August 2013 Leonard v. Pepsi Cola The Assigned case that I am to discuss is Leonard v. Pepsi Cola. In this paper I will discuss the facts of the case‚ the history‚ issues the court had to decide‚ the holding or the answer to the questions‚ the reasoning the court used to justify the decision‚ and finally the results and the judgment. The Facts is the Leonard sued Pepsi Co for refusing a formal demand to honor its offer. The history of this case is; Pepsi Co ran a promotional
Premium United States Civil procedure Plaintiff