United States v. 50 Acres of Land was a court case between a public committee and the United States government. As a result of a flood control project, the United States government condemned 50 acres of land that was being used as a landfill. The dispute was over whether the government needed to provide more money for the 50 acres of land. The court had only provided compensation based on the current market value of the property instead of an amount that would have allowed the city to construct a larger, replacement facility. The Supreme Court upheld the court’s ruling that the normal market value was just compensation in a unanimous 9-0 ruling. The legal issue that the court had to address was what was considered just compensation. The court
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
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.
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.
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
In the year of 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant Act providing funds for the creation of land-grant schools in each state in the United States of America. Specifically, this act gave each state “30,000 acres…to establish a college that would promote education in agriculture, mechanics, classical studies and military tactics” (Morrill Act). The act provided each state with government funds to purchase the land, but the state itself was required to find the capital to erect the buildings. The Morrill Act was initially introduced to President Buchanan, but he vetoed it based on his belief that it was “financially draining for the Treasury, a threat to existing colleges, and unconstitutional” (Morrill, J.). On the second occasion
III. Facts: Virginia Military Institute (VMI) is a public institution that historically excluded women from admission. Their approach is based on “adversative” instruction with the aim of producing citizen-soldiers. Their admission policy would come into question, and in response to a US Court of Appeals ruling, the institute set up a separate female-only school – Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership, or VWIL. However, VWIL’s instruction and curricula differed from those of VMI’s. The US Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case of United States v. Virginia (1996) deals with the issue on male only admissions for the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The issue presented itself as a tricky one because there are still a lot of female only admission schools and VMI was the only male institution at the time. The case began its life in the Virginia Circuit Court and the issue was about VWIL not being equal to VMI. VMI’s admissions were for male only at the time. This case having an issue of constitutionality comes from the 14th amendment's equal protection clause being violated. This whole issue began in 1990 when a high school challenged the single sex admission policy while trying to enter VMI. The female high school student filed a complaint to the attorney
Gardner v. Florida established that the imposition of the death sentence by a jury must "be, and appear to be, based on reason, rather than caprice or emotion." While it must be assumed that the jury is aware of the emotional impact of a murder such as this, it does not need to be presented formally during the sentencing stage. It cannot be argued that the use of victim impact statements serve any purpose other “than to inflame the jury and divert it from deciding the case on the relevant evidence concerning the crime and the defendant.” It is hard to imagine that the statements and characterizations as well as the recommendations will not unduly influence the sentence handed down by the jury. Victim impact statements are a blatant play at
and remedies applied by courts of law in civil proceedings giving the plaintiff or claimant relief
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
“Democracy in America is over” (Grayson). The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Citizens United leads us further down a path that will leave everyday citizens disenfranchised and wealthy, private interests more powerful than ever. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by Citizens United after lower courts declared their film, “Hillary”, illegal under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It was considered independent spending on what is essentially political propaganda attacking Hillary Clinton and spending falling into this category made within 30 days of an election is illegal under the BCRA. Citizens United claimed that the part of the law they were said to be in violation of was unconstitutional and limited their free speech and that they were not in violation anyway, since their advertising was not done by direct