The Dred Scott vs Sanford case was a very interesting case. This case was brought about when Dred Scott brawled for his freedom. He went to court and he fought for what he thought was right. The Dred Scott case affected society tremendously back then; the case itself created tension between the North and the South. He took a stand for what he believed in and it angered some people but he also had supporters.
The case Dred Scott v. Sanford was a major setback to the national solidarity due to the time of the case. In the mid-1800s, the nation was separated into two noteworthy segments, the North and the South. The North was anti-slavery and the South was pro slavery. The case decided that oppressed African Americans have no rights to flexibility, as they are property. It further decided that people of African lineage couldn't assert citizenship in the United States. This disappointed the North in light of the fact that it conflicted with what they had faith in.
Katz, Mitchell J. (2013). “Certegy Check Services to Pay $3.5 Million for Alleged Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Furnisher Rule” http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/08/certegy-check-services-pay-35-million-alleged-violations-fair: Retrieved on 5/20/2014
[The case of Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), was a landmark case for patient privilege that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1996. The case brought up the issue of client privilege and whether a social worker and client’s relationship should be protected. The Supreme Court found in favor of Redmond in the case however, Justice Scalia dissented in the case. In this research his dissent will be explored and an argument for protection of the relationship between a social worker and their client will be made.
n 1961, when he was fifty-one, Earl Gideon was arrested, prosecuted, denied counsel, and sent to jail for breaking and entering with the intent to commit petty larceny. Gideon challenged national law and criminal prosecution standards, and eventually helped establish a more just criminal system.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963); Clarence Earl Gideon is the plaintiff, and Louie L. Wainwright is the defendant.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The Stoneridge vs. Scientific-Atlanta / Motorola case is often compared to the Central Bank vs. First Interstate Bank case because they are very similar in nature. In the Central Bank case, the court ruled that there was no right for a private party to take action against those who aid and abet violations of Rule 10b-5. Therefore, liability was limited to primary rather than secondary participators. This may be the reason why the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Stoneridge’s charges, since Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola were indirectly involved and never took any part in falsifying financial documents, nor did they make any public statements about the issue.
A case concerning the authority of Congress to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause. While a student enrolled at Virginia Tech in 1994, Christy Brozonkala alleged that she was assaulted and raped by fellow students and football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. The Committee found insufficient evidence against Crawford. After the findings from the first hearing were dismissed for administrative reasons, a second hearing was held, and Morrison was found guilty of “using “abusive language.” Morrison appealed the decision to the provost and the punishment was set aside for being
The case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford was a very high profile case, which its decision had a great impact on proceeding events. This case was based on the controversy of whether black’s slave or free, were considered citizens according the constitution. Also since blacks were not considered citizens, they could not bring suit for their freedom, “The Court further ruled that as a black man Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit” (The Dred Scott Decision). Dred Scott was seeking his freedom as well as the freedom of his wife and kids. In the proceeding decision of his plea, Dred Scott and his family were denied the right to be considered citizens and were still entitled as slaves. A few years later Dred Scott and his Family were given their freedom.
105. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a decision by the U.S Supreme court in which the court stated that African Americans,whether enslaved or free could not be American citizens. The case sparked questions for standards for African Americans
As the legal hands of time travel forward, we witness the meaning of private property change drastically and the rights of property owners disintegrate through the success of limiting cases on the overall rights of property owners. The State v. Shack 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971) case surfaced in court as an issue of trespassing, when the defendants Tejeras representing SCOPE, a nonprofit organization which provides medical care to migrant workers, and Shack representing CRLS, a nonprofit organization providing legal services to migrant workers, entered the private property of Tedesco in search of two of his employees. The plaintiff confronted the defendants about their intentions on the property and learning of their purpose, he offered to retrieve the workers and provide them a location to discuss their needs in Tedesco’s office and in his presence; the defendants refused the plaintiff’s offer. In response he asked them to leave, accompanied by a State Trooper removing the defendants from the property.
Appellant was arrested on suspicion of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. R. 4,5. A grand jury indictment was granted for possession of DHTC, with intent to distribute. R. 3. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on the unreasonableness of the detective’s search of Appellant’s home. R. 8-11.
In State v. Stanley, the Kansas Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s previous Missouri conviction for driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) would “not qualify as a prior conviction under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(i),” the Kansas DUI statute, representing an important development in the law. The court compared the relevant Kansas and Missouri statutes and relevant case law to determine if the statutes were “equivalent.” The court determined the Kansas statute criminalizes both “operating or attempting to operate a vehicle with a blood- or breath-alcohol level in excess of .08 or more; and . . . operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving the vehicle.” In comparison, the Missouri statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 557.010, criminalizes “operat[ing] a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” Thus, the court reasoned, “[t]he Missouri statute, on its face, is too broad to count as a prior conviction under” the Kansas statute because it criminalized “a wider range of activity” than the Kansas DUI statute by focusing on “the fact . . . of intoxication,” not on the degree of intoxication as the Kansas statute
Elijah manuel was sitting in the passenger seat of a car when he gets pulled over. The officer smelt marijuana, so he dragged him out of the car and patted him down. He found a bottle of pills, tested it, and falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. They were later tested again and proven not to be ecstasy. Charges were then dropped and Manuel sues the city of joliet and the city police officers. His malicious prosecution claim was dismissed under Newsome v. McCabe which held that that federal claims of malicious prosecution steam from the right to due process and are not a Fourth Amendment issue. So the question presented to the court was whether or not an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search