Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Facts of the Case Jennifer Gratz‚ a student with a 3.8 GPA and ACT score of 25‚ applied to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature‚ Science and Arts (LSA) in 1995. Patrick Hamacher‚ a student with an adjusted GPA of 3.0 and an ACT score of 28‚ also applied to the School in 1997. They were both denied admission and had to study elsewhere (Oyez‚ 2003). The University of Michigan’s the LSA used a 150-point scale to rank applicants‚ with 100 points
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
Bair 1 Marissa Bair Mr. Turcotte AP US History 6 December 2012 Hollingsworth v. Perry 1. In February of 2004 the mayor of San Francisco‚ Gavin Newsom and other city officials began distributing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in the city of San Francisco‚ California. In March of the same year‚ the County of San Francisco ordered the halt of marriages‚ pending court review. On March 29th‚ the San Francisco Superior Court declared San Francisco’s issuing of same-sex marriage licenses
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Texas v. Johnson (1989) In 1984‚ following a protest march through the streets of Dallas‚ Texas against the policies of the Reagan Administration‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was handed an American flag. Outside the Dallas City Hall‚ Johnson through the flag onto the ground‚ poured kerosene on it‚ and set fire to it. Many protesters around Johnson began a chant of‚ "America‚ the red‚ white‚ and blue‚ we spit on you!" While many protesters agreed with what Johnson had done‚ there were several others who
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Marbury v. Madison is viewed as the most important case in the U.S. Supreme Court history. The important constitutional principle that was established by U.S. Supreme Court‚ was to use the idea of “Judicial Review”‚ which is the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Under Justice Marshall‚ the court began its ascent as equal in power to the congress and president. Jefferson as the new president‚ did not want appointees from the opposing party taking the
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY‚ LUCKNOW 2012-13 FINAL DRAFT ON BIRD v JONES Under The Guidance Of: Submitted by: ( ) ( ) Mr. Shashank Shekhar Assistant Professor Roll
Premium Logic Reason Law
Maryland v. Pringle‚ 540 S. 366 (2003) Facts: A police Officer Snyder stopped a car for speeding on August 7‚ 1999 at 3:16 a.m. Partlow‚ the owner of the vehicle was driving the car‚ Pringle was the front seat passenger‚ and Smith was the back seat passenger. Officer Snyder asked Partlow for his driver’s license and the registration. When Partlow opened the glove box to grab his vehicle registration‚ Officer Snyder saw a large quantity of rolled up cash. After‚ checking Partlow’s license
Premium Appellate court Appeal Car seat
HOUSE RULES 8 RULE 1 8 RULE 2 8 RULE 3 9 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EACH RULE 9 RULE 1: 9 Strength 9 Weakness 9 RULE 2: 9 Strength 9 Weakness 10 RULE 3: 10 Strength 10 Weakness 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY 11 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. V. Amadio [1983] HCA 14 Question 1- Ratio-Three Levels of Generality Broad level of Generality: Where a party enters into an agreement with another party and takes an unfair advantage of the situation by failing to disclose anything which has taken
Premium Common law Contract Bank
Leonard v. PepsiCo an Offer Too Good To Be True American InterContinental University Abstract In this week’s Individual Project we are asked to consider specific questions in regards to the case of a Seattle man who took on a soft drink giant in regards to a Harrier Jet. The following pages will discuss first the four elements of a valid contract and then move into a discussion of the objective theory of contracts. The objective theory of contracts will then be applied specifically to the
Premium Contract
1. Name of the Case: Linda W illiamson v. City of Houston‚ Texas‚ 148 F.3d 462‚ 1998. 2. Facts: In 1990‚ Linda Williamson‚ a police officer with the City of Houston Police Department‚ was assigned to the Organized Crime Squad. Officer Doug McLeod‚ another member of this squad‚ began sexually harassing her on a daily basis and this behavior lasted for approximately 18 months. The harassing behavior occurred in front of other police officers‚ including the officers’ supervisor‚ Sergeant Bozeman. McLeod’s
Premium Police Appeal Constable
Col.)‚ 2 L.Ed. 60 (Cite as: 1 Cranch 137‚ 5 U.S. 137 (U.S.Dist.Col.)‚ 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.)) Page 1 Supreme Court of the United States William MARBURY v. James MADISON‚ Secretary of State of the United States. Feb. 1803. West Headnotes Action 13 2 250k3 Existence and Adequacy of Other Remedy in General 250k3(2) Remedy at Law 250k3(4) k. Acts and Proceedings of Public Officers and Boards and Municipalities in General. Most Cited Cases Mandamus 250 63 13 Action 13I Grounds and Conditions
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus United States