infliction of the death penalty is constitutionally impermissible in all circumstances under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Their case is a strong one. But I find it unnecessary to reach the ultimate question they would decide. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority‚ 297 U.S. 288‚ 347 (Brandeis‚ J.‚ concurring). The opinions of other Justices today have set out in admirable and thorough detail the origins and judicial history of the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against the infliction
Free Capital punishment Prison Crime
1. Case Name‚ Citation and Court Hampton v. Federal Express Corporation‚ 917 F.2d 1119 (8th Cir. 1990) 2. Key Facts a. Carl Gerome Hampton was a thirteen year old boy that was diagnosed with cancer and needed a blood transplant. b. Carl was a patient at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Omaha‚ Nebraska. This hospital sent five samples of Carl’s blood to the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Iowa City so they could find a match between five other people for a bone marrow transplant. c. FedEx
Free Common law Law United States
TIO V ABAYATA FACTS: This is an action for annulment of mortgage‚ mortgage sale‚ a subsequent sale and certificates of title‚ filed by the successors-in-interest of Celedonio Abayata. It was respondents’ contention that they are the absolute owners of the property in dispute‚ a 1‚868-square meter parcel of land located in Lapu-Lapu City‚ Cebu‚ by virtue of a final Decision dated November 26‚ 1986‚ rendered by the RTC of Lapu-lapu City. Respondents alleged that through machinations‚ defendant Benjamin Lasola (Lasola)
Premium Real estate Ownership Mortgage loan
party. It was likely that those who provided such assistance would be guilty of assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 s.2(1)‚ whilst those who carried out euthanasia would be guilty of murder. After the decision in R. (on the application of Purdy) v DPP [2009] UKHL 45‚ [2010] 1 A.C. 345‚ the DPP had set out in a policy statement the factors to be taken into account when considering whether to prosecute assisted suicide cases. The court was required to determine whether (i) to grant a declaration
Premium Suicide Law
GONZALES v. OREGON Oral Argument: 05 -’06 Term Subject: Physician-assisted suicide‚ Ashcroft directive‚ Controlled Substances Act‚ Oregon Death with Dignity Act A group of Oregon residents‚ including a doctor‚ a pharmacist‚ and several terminally ill patients‚ sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule‚ referred to as the "Ashcroft Directive‚" declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Congress
positive discrimination or employment equity. This brings about many positives and negatives to the different lives and working fields in South Africa today‚ all of which will be discussed. (Nieman and Bennett‚ 2006: 307) Affirmative action was implemented in 1994 once Apartheid came to an end and is still in place today. It aims at making the workplace of South Africa more representative and fair and to give the previously disadvantaged a chance to get jobs‚ be educated and have equal opportunities
Free South Africa Black people Affirmative action
King v Cogdon Minerva Rodriguez Criminal Law 1310 22 April 2013 Professor Holden Case: King v Cogdon King v Cogdon‚ was an Australian case heard in 1950. Ms. Cogdon who suffers from minor neurotic conditions is believed to be her daughter’s murderer. She had on an occasion dreamt spiders were attacking her daughter (Pat). That night Ms. Cogdon had slept walked into her room and began to violently brush the spiders off her daughter’s
Premium Psychosis Psychiatry Sleep
Legal Brief Case: Right to Confront: Coy V Iowa. Date: August 2‚1985. Principals:(main characters) *Kathy Brown (13) *Linda Thompson (friend) (13) *girls names were changed to protect identities. -intruder believed to be John Avery Coy‚ (34). Facts of the Case: Kathy Brown invited her friend Linda to come and sleep over. Kathy made a makeshift tent out in her backyard. Girls fell asleep between 10:30 and 11:00 pm. In the middle of the night Kathy saw a hand pull back one of the blankets
Free Supreme Court of the United States Jury United States Constitution
relevant to the offence and the offender.3 Hence in the context of sentencing indigenous offenders‚ where it is related to the offence‚ the indigenous circumstances will provide a relevant context for mitigating the sentence.4 The seminal case of R v Fernando5 (“Fernando”) adumbrated the oft-cited Fernando principles6 which comprehensively set out the considerations when sentencing indigenous offenders. Key amongst these considerations is the relevance of indigenous background‚ poverty and alcoholism
Premium Indigenous peoples Prison Criminal justice
Korematsu v. United States Japanese Internment‚ Equal Protection (1944) When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7‚ 1941‚ the American military became concerned about the security of the United States‚ particularly along the West Coast. At the time‚ about 112‚000 people of Japanese descent lived on the West Coast; about 70‚000 of these were American citizens. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This authorized the Secretary of War or any designated
Premium Japanese American internment President of the United States United States