Mathews v. Eldridge George Eldridge resided in Norton, Virginia, which is a small coal mining city located in the southwestern corner of Virginia. Mr. Eldridge worked for the Interstate Railroad, he was a member of the military, and worked for Royal Crown Cola. While at Royal Crown Cola, Mr. Eldridge became totally disabled; chronic anxiety, back strain, and diabetes. In the 1940s, Mr. Eldridge had been diagnosed with spinal arthritis. Mr. Eldridge’s health continued to degenerate as a result of his strenuous delivery jobs. However, over the years Mr. Eldridge had acquired a family and purchased a house. After working eight years as a delivery driver, he was no longer able to perform his job. Shortly after Mr. Eldridge became disabled, he began to suffer from diabetes George Eldridge, in Mathews v. Eldridge, 1967, applied for Social Security disability benefits in Norton, VA. Mr. Eldridge’s application was rejected and the decision was upheld in an administrative review conducted by the Social Security headquarters in Baltimore. The case was reconsidered by the state agency at Mr. Eldridge’s request. In the spring of 1968, Mr. Eldridge was granted a hearing in front of a hearing examiner, in which the examiner ruled in his favor. …show more content…
Eldridge hired an Attorney name McAfee of Cline, from the law firm of McAfee, Adkins & Gillenwater. Mr. McAfee filed a lawsuit for Mr. Eldridge in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Mr. Eldridge’s attorney contended that his Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires an evidentiary hearing prior to terminating Social Security disability benefits. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and within a meaningful manner. While deciding whether due process necessities for the termination disability benefits under the Social Security Act, what allows for termination of benefits when the recipient is no longer considered disabled. The Social
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Agreeing that her dismissal was not discriminatory, or a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation act 1973. The courts too believed that Davis hearing loss would prevent her from successfully working as an RN and there for denied entry in to training was agreeable. The appeals Court reversed the findings, stating that District Court misinterpreted section 504 of “otherwise qualified.” More so the forth circuit disagreed that an individuals disability, such as Davis hearing loss even be considered as part of qualification measurements in to any such federally funded program. In addition “reasonable accommodations” have to be made. Southeaster University appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
On September 9th, 1993 at around two in the morning, 17 year old Christopher Simmons, 15 year old Charlie Benjamin and 16 year old John Tessmer met at the home of 29 year old Brian Moomey. Moomey drove the three teens to the house of 46 year old Shirley Crook. Tessmer refused to go with them and ended up going back to his house. Simmons and Benjamin went to the back of Shirley Crook’s house, found a window and cracked it open. When they reached though to unlock the back door and entered the house, Simmons turned on the hallway light. The light woke her and she yelled out, “Who’s there?” Simmons walked into her bedroom and told her to get out of bed and lay on the floor. They duct taped her mouth and eyes and wrapped an electrical cord around
The Ontario Provincial Police serve the province of Ontario in many functions, including the safety of traffic (Ontario Provincial Police , 2009). The safety of traffic is essential for a secure society; however when a law enforcement member deviates from legislated policing practices causing an unjustified accusation of a civilian, are the people of the Province of Ontario any safer? This issue can be examined in the case of R. v. Harrison, as Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police conducted a traffic stop of Bradley Harrison, which was not justified. Harrison was pulled over for only having a rear licence plate, however the vehicle was registered in the province of Alberta, making this vehicle legal (R. v. Harrison, 2009). The police officer justified his actions to the Supreme Court of Canada by insisting on the importance of upholding police integrity in the public mind, and this regular traffic stop resulted in a search and seizure of cocaine and a charge of driving with a suspended licence. (R. v. Harrison, 2009).This was not sufficient reasoning for Bertoncello’s actions according to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. An examination of the evidence presented before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Harrison, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations, precedent cases, and investigative police procedures along with legal proceedings will rationalize the ruling of the court for excluding narcotic paraphernalia for trafficking indictment.
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
Bounds v. Smith was argued November 1, 1976 and the case was decided April 27, 1977 by THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth circuit. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. STEWART, J., post, and REHNQUIST, J filed dissenting opinions, in which BURGER, C.J., joined.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
George Washington Carver was born into slavery January of 1860 on the Moses Carver plantation in Diamond Grove, Missouri. He spent the first year of his life, the brutal days of border war, between Missouri and neighboring Kansas. George was a very sickly child with a whooping cough, which later lead to his speech impediment, and he was tiny and puny. George's father, James Carver, died in a wood hauling accident when he was bringing wood to his master's house one day. George was sick a great deal during his early years. In 1861, when George was one year old, raiders kidnapped him and his mother with horses from their home in Missouri. Moses Carver, Mary's master, heard that a bushwhacker named Bentley knew Mary's whereabouts along with little George's. Moses offered him 40 acres of his best timberland and Pacer, one of his best horses. Bentley accepted the offer and started in pursuit all the way into Arkansas. Bentley returned a few days later only with young George in a bundle and no sign of Mary. A few years later, in spring, little George was in the woods scraping at the earth. When someone was sick George gathered roots, herbs, and bark, which he boiled to make medicines. Carver grew to be a student of life and a scholar, despite the illness and frailty of his early childhood. Because he was not strong enough to work in the fields, he helped with household chores and gardening. Probably because of these duties and because of the hours he would spend exploring the woods around his home, he developed a keen interest in plants at an early age. Neighbors called George the Plant Doctor because he made house to house calls in Diamond Grove to prescribe for ailing plants. George had his own mini garden where he nursed sick plants b...
Scotch, R (1989) From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming federal disability policy. Temple University Press: Philadelphia