Russell v. the Queen (1882): This case fell according to the JCPC under powers in favor of the federal government. The reasoning for this case is not convincing. The reason for this is that it does not ban alcohol for the entire country‚ but instead merely restricts and regulates it. The legislation for this case could have fallen under: section 92 (9)‚ which deals with saloons‚ taverns‚ and shops; section 92 (13) which is about property and civil rights in the province; or section 92 (16) which
Premium United States Canada United States Constitution
Brandenburg v. Ohio The Supreme Court uses various criteria for the consideration of cases. Not all cases may be chosen by the Supreme Court‚ so they must wisely choose their cases. The Court must be uniform and consistent with the cases they choose according to federal law. "Supreme Court Rule 17‚ Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari ’" (Rossum 28).These rules are obligatory to follow because the Court uses it to grant certiorari. There are four basic rules for Rule 17. First‚ the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Carhart case in 2007 was significant to the way abortions were to be performed. The case established the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which banned D&E procedures and regulated abortions. The procedure was the dilatation of a woman’s cervix followed by the extraction of an unborn baby. (Kennedy 1)
Premium Human rights Pregnancy Abortion
Florida v. Bostick Citation # 501 U.S. 429 Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 26‚ 1991 Decided June 20‚ 1991 Florida v. Bostick was a felony drug trafficking case which set precedence to the legality of random police searches of passengers aboard public buses and trains pertaining to said passenger’s fourth amendment rights. Shortly after boarding a bus departing from Miami headed for Atlanta‚ Terrance Bostick was approached by members of the Broward County Sheriffs
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
In the sole dissent of the Plessey v. Ferguson case‚ Justice Harlan proclaimed that “[o]ur Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens” (Linder‚ 2016). Yet trials in America have long included conversations about race‚ such as with the infamous O. J. Simpson trial. Legal distinctions based on race are also frequently made‚ such as is done when considering college admission. These conversations and distinctions are allowed because in reality‚ neither the Constitution
Premium O. J. Simpson murder case O. J. Simpson African American
I have gone through all the assigned cases and I must admit it constituted one of the most challenging I have read thus far. Most of the legal jargons are notoriously difficult to comprehend. However‚ I braved the terms and what not coupled with patience and I did find a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. Among the three cases‚ I find King v. Burwell case interesting‚ in a sense‚ for the reason that the arguments raised in the case were about the subsidies for The Patient Protection and Affordable
Premium Health care Medicine Health economics
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
trevor v whitworth [1887] case i need to get this case ‚ what is the case is in about the face and the courts decision Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v. Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor[1990] 1 MLJ 356. The appellants extended loans to the respondents and the loan was secured by documents and guarantees. The documents evidencing the loans showed that the hotel whose shares were being purchased by a company had given financial assistance to that company. This act contravened Section 67 of the Companies
Premium Bond Debt Platoon
offensively‚ involving actual or perceived race‚ color‚ religion‚ gender identity‚ or national origin. Through the critical analysis of Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ it argues that an important element which is that the First Amendment does not protect violence. It enhances the maximum penalty for act motivated by a discriminatory point of view. IRAC Analysis Wisconsin v. Mitchell‚ 508 U.S. 476 (1993) Fact: A young black man his name is Mitchell‚ and a group of his friends beat up a withe boy in Wisconsin. Mitchell
Premium
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