. One of the very distinct features of law, is how it can apply to a plethora of different areas. In addition, each of those areas has its own interpretation that can be either completely different or identical to another part. In the Pastrana v. United States (746 F.2d 1447) a plethora of new information was provided that showed the versatility of law, especially when it involves the United States government. The newly acquired scholarly information included the application of immunity to government employees under specific circumstances. It was previously unknown that government employees and officials have a layer of protection that shields them from certain liabilities such as those encountered in the line of duty. It was discovered that
The conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
According to the article of Brazill v. State district Court of Appeal of Florida written by Gross (2003) Brazill classmates claimed that he appeared to be angry during this time, but students calmed he was not crying or shaking meaning there were no kind of remorse. Brazill frustration began to grow when he wasn’t getting what he wanted and eventually he pulled the slide back onto his grandfather’s weapon while Grunow attempted to close the classroom door as he tried to protect the students and himself, Brazill pulled the trigger and Grunow fell to the floor, with a gunshot wound between the eyes (Gross, 2003). A school surveillance videotape of the hallway revealed that Brazill then had pointed the gun at Grunow for nine seconds before shooting
For instance, in the case that an assailant barges into an organization and launches an attack on the employees. The unarmed security guard will be unproductive, being, that he or she is unequipped with the proper equipment to impede such an attack. Moreover, an unarmed security doesn’t have the high level training, that a law enforcement officer or an individual with prior military background possess. That is to say, that such an individual only embodies a low degree of specialization or experience at best. Thus, leaving the organization exposed and vulnerable to such a horrific act of violence without an adequate contingency plan in place. Therefore, it is highly recommended that an organization acquires the services of an armed security agency. Now, we will scrutinize the last topic of this case assignment dealing with a ban imposed on
America”. The Georgetown Law Journal. 80.95 (1991): 95-129. Georgetown Law Library. Web. 16 Jun 2014
The 1810 Supreme Court case of Robert Fletcher and John Peck is one of great importance, bringing the controversial topics of bribery, contracts and sales into question. This case established a concrete and binding view of contracts and was the first time the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. Fletcher v. Peck was the cause of a monumental shift in the different views of the American people.
Despite their responsibility to be impartial to political and social influences, the Supreme Court Justices knew well enough that Congress aimed for President Clinton’s impeachment. The pressures from Congress and society for his trial urged the Court to speculate the extent of the president’s presidential immunity, a power of the president previously questioned in United States v. Nixon, 418, U.S., 683 (1974). This precedent made explicitly that “no person is above the law,” not even the president. From the unanimous decision in the case in discussion, it can be perceived that the Court did not want to be seen as the branch of government that would allow a president get away with serious sexual allegations regardless whether tried during office or
The supreme court justices Ruth Bader, Clarence Thomas and Antoni Scalia are all very intelligent individuals they all had great academic and career success leading them to be given a spot on the court making them some of the most impactful humans in America. They all differ in how they do their job in their views or the way they present themselves to them media.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
Scarlett, T. (2001, April). Private employees of off duty police may be liable in Tennessee. Trial, v. 37 i. 4 p. 32
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
of law has proved to be confusing to both juries and judges due to the