Claire Cole was an employee of the city of Salem, Massachusetts for many years. She began her work for the Salem department of public works in 1975, with the responsibilities of answering telephones, filing paperwork, typing, photocopying, and assisting with the payroll activities. Claire Cole also became a member of the contributory retirement system in 1976. Claire Cole worked for the city of Salem for 25 years before receiving news that would alter her life forever. The Contributory Retirement Appeal Board appealed on behalf of Cole, by stating that the accident occurred because of the stress that was caused by her termination. The Retirement Board attempted to counter suit, by stating that contributions should not be received because the accident did not happen while Cole was on the job. The ruling is later overturned and Claire Cole is entitled to compensation of the benefits. Unfortunately, Claire Cole was deceased upon the announcement of the final ruling. Although Cole was deceased, the benefits were granted to her estate. The Retirement Board of Salem consists of five to nine elected officials that participate in a private party. The Retirement Board of Salem was responsible for establishing the benefits that employee would be eligible to receive upon retirement. They are required to set up ways to compensate retired individuals that were on the board. The Contributory Retirement Appeal Board used the Division of Administrative Law of Appeals to make sure that due process was used for all administrative agencies within the state of Massachusetts. The Division of Administrative Law of Appeals, also known as DALA, heard the case of Claire Cole so that it could be determined if she was eligible to receive these benefits. Claire Cole, an employee of the city of Salem for 25 years, suffered a permanently disabling heart attack within one hour after
While the widely exposed and discussed trials of WorldCom's and Tyco's top executives were all over the media, one of the most interesting cases of securities fraud was happening without any public acknowledgement.
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
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.
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.
Robert D. Kaplan’s articles “Travels into America’s Future” present a description of Tucson, Arizona as it stood in 1998. His articles are based entirely on his personal experiences with the city and with it’s Mexican neighbors to the south, and while somewhat entertaining, contain vast oversights and discrepancies that make his outsider standing obvious to any native reader.
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
Following her passing on Thanksgiving, “Munoz and his wife’s parents told the hospital that Marlise, herself a veteran paramedic, had made it clear to everyone she didn’t want to be kept alive by machines under any circumstances” (Goodwyn).... ... middle of paper ... ... “The Strange Case of Marlise Munoz and John Peter Smith Hospital.”
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
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
Nature of Case: The plaintiff is Peter Stanley. He said that his rights to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment have been violated. He believes that the Illinois law that makes children of unwed father’s wards of the state upon death of the mother violated his rights.
“‘Look inside a high school, and you are looking in a mirror, under bright lights. How we treat our children, what they see and learn from us, tell us what is healthy and what is sick and more about who we are than we may want to know (Gibbs, 1999).’”(Beger 119). Essayist and managing editor of Time Magazine, Nancy Gibbs tells the public of how unappealing public schools have become due to their carelessness and negligence. Consequently, schools have become power crazed institutions that punish students in the place of a parent. Thus, schools that operate in this manner have begun to scare the public, and it has brought forth court cases because schools searched students unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court of the United State should revise
A rehabilitation clinic dismissed two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The two counselors, including Smith, sought unemployment benefits. Possessing peyote is a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The rehabilitation clinic denied the counselors unemployment on grounds of misconduct. Smith filed suit again the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the rehabilitation clinic’s verdict. The court stated that Smith’s religious use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Employment Division, Department of Resources appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and use of peyote is a crime. The Supreme Court returned the case back to Oregon State Courts to determine if Oregon law prohibits the use and possession of peyote for religious purposes. Oregon State court ruled that consumption of illegal drugs for religious purposes was still considered illegal; however, they were also aware that this ruling also violated the First Amendment. The main issue is whether the government can prevent the religious use of peyote under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if a law prohibits it for everyone else. In addition, can the state deny unemployment benefits to someone who has been fired for using peyote for religious purposes?
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Kelley, Mary. Introduction. The Power of Her Sympathy. By Catharine Maria Sedgwick. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1993.