In the present case‚ the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case‚ Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though‚ his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some‚ but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard‚ this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school‚ so the
Premium United States Discrimination Race
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion‚ or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech‚ or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble‚ and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.law.cornell.edu). Over the years there have been many court cases that try to help decipher what is mean by the 1st amendment. In 1942 commercial speech was introduced by the Supreme Court with the Valentine V. Chrestensen
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Influence of Case Law on Policing Of the numerous things that can change policies and procedures within a police department‚ or multiple police departments‚ case law is probably the most common. Case law extends from rulings of the courts on certain topics that may not have a written policy or that may cause existing policy to be reviewed and rewritten. Perhaps the landmark case that has had the most substantial influence on modern policing is Terry v. Ohio. In the case‚ Detective McFadden
Premium Police Crime Criminal justice
Bush v Schiavo 885 So. 2d 321 (2004) a. Plaintiff: Jeb Bush‚ Governor of Florida b. Defendant: Michael Schiavo‚ Spouse of Theresa Schiavo II. Court Decision By: Supreme Court of Florida III. Procedural History: Mr. Schiavo requested the guardianship court to permit him to end the life-prolonging procedures that were supporting his wife‚ who was in a persistent vegetative state. Theresa Schiavo’s parents‚ Robert and Mary Schindler‚ opposed the motion and brought the case in to trial. After the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant‚ Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan‚ took almost $30‚000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently‚ and returned the money before any charges were filed‚ but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment
Premium
Comparative Law Case 1-1. IGNACIO SEQUIHUA V. TEXACO INC. ET AL. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas‚ 1994. FACTS: Plaintiffs‚ Ecuador residents‚ filed suit in Texas over alleged environmental damage in Ecuador. Plaintiffs pray for money damages‚ an injunction to clean up‚ and a court-administered trust fund. Defendants bring motions to dismiss. ISSUE: Should the court decline to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of comity of nations? HOLDING: Yes. LAW: Section
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Congress
Death-Qualified Jury It was determined in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois‚ 391 U.S. 510 (1968) that upon the trail and conviction of said name petitioner for murder was sentenced to the death penalty. However their was challenge for cause based on an Illinois statute‚ that allows for any individual juror member that when question at the point of being accepted as potential jurors. If it is determined that he or she would rule in favor of the death penalty‚
Premium Capital punishment Jury Law
CRUZAN‚ BY HER PARENTS AND CO-GUARDIANS‚ CRUZAN ET UX. v. DIRECTOR‚ MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH‚ ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 497 U.S. 261; 110 S. Ct. 2841; 111 L. Ed. 2d 224; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3301 December 6‚ 1989‚ Argued June 25‚ 1990‚ Decided PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. DISPOSITION: 760 S. W. 2d 408‚ affirmed. JUDGES: REHNQUIST‚ C. J.‚ delivered the opinion of the Court‚ in which WHITE‚ O’CONNOR‚ SCALIA‚ and KENNEDY
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
Legal Hurdles With the introduction of Birth Control to the public it had its fair share of legal consequences. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut is considered the foundational decision in recognizing the constitutional right of sexual privacy (Stein‚ 2010‚ p. 29). In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut it was stated that Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton were arrested for giving “information‚ instruction‚ and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception” (Stein
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
In the state of Ohio‚ the courts have taken a pro-business approach‚ at least regarding the nursing home industry‚ as is evidenced‚ by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case‚ the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home‚ an Ohio nursing home‚ by a former resident‚ Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home‚ she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury