Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Problem: David H. Lucas purchased two beach front lots on Isle of Palms in Charleston county in 1986 for 900,000 with intent to later build one single family home on each lot. The following year when South Carolina conducted a survey of the coast line the rustles showed that the beaches of South Carolina were critically eroding. Due to the rustles of the survey South Carolina issued the Beachfront Management Act (BMA). The act placed restraints on the usage of land along the coast line, and because the building line was moved inward Lucas' lots were affected with no exceptions provided. When he bought those lots the year before that particular zone was not required to have a permit to build. When Lucas went to build the proper permits were not given due to the BMA, and his lots were deemed 95% worthless.
Laws: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
Passed in order to protect the country coastline from erosion.
The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977
Passed in order to protect the shoreline from erosion, preserve the beach and dune systems, and prevent further coastal damage. And said that before construction could take place in any designated, environmentally sensitive "critical area" an owner had to obtain permission from the South Carolina Coastal Council.
The South Carolina Beachfront Management Act of 1988
Passed to further enforce the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, and extend the "critical area" further inland.
Case: Lucas submitted his suit to the South Carolina court of Common Pleas, and sued, alleging that the Bea...
... middle of paper ...
...o just compensation as stated in the fifth and fourteen adamants of our Constitution.
Significance: Although the South Carolina Supreme Court decided that state regulations were designed to prevent serious public harm, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a property owner suffered a taking, there were no exceptions from common rule ( the Takings Clause and the just Compensation Clause). Furthermore, when the state of South Carolina amended its original statute by including provisions that might permit limited construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that property owners must still be compensated. Even when legislation later renders the initial act less restrictive, property owners still suffer from the original effects of a taking, thus, just compensation must be rendered. (Mikula 518)
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.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
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.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
Case name: Peter K. Dementas v The Estate of Jack Tallas, 764 P.2d 628 (1988)
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
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.
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
In the same year that Zimpfer was rejected, Palm Beach County filled only 4 percent of managerial positions with persons over 55 years of age and only 16 percent with persons over 39. Do these data indicate illegal discrimination using disparate impact theory? Should Zimpfer's lawyer use disparate impact theory for his claim of age discrimination?
fact that there would have to be considerable respect given to officer discretion in light
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Society experience arbitrariness in different ways and aspects of life; since childhood, our upbringing is full of arbitrariness, at home, we experience arbitrariness from our parents or guardians, when grown up, we perceive arbitrariness in our employment environment, and even at sports events; but in criminology when arbitrariness occurs, we recognize that our criminal justice system is shattered and that each person or party that partakes on such process contributes a level of arbitrariness that is unconscionable. Since our culture has experienced arbitrariness in all aspects of life, arbitrariness goes unnoticed most of the time, our society has grown so accustom to it that it will not try to avoid it. However, when it comes to person
After long and heated arguments between experts, it was decided that the Superintendent of Construction was extremely inexperienced, and that there was "recklessness in the handling of public money," on the part of the Treasury Department and the Immigration Bureau of Officials. The entire building, excluding the hospitals, had been built shoddily. After news of the problems with the building had been in the media, a lot of people involved with the construction of the building resigned their positions.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
location and had been vacant for a number of years, Daniel estimated the value to be $1.9 million