US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Name:WENDT V HOST INTERNATIONAL
GEORGE WENDT, an individual;
JOHN RATZENBERGER, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
No. 96-55243
HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation, D.C. No.
Defendant-Appellee, CV-93-00142-R
and ORDER
PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Filed December 28, 1999
Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Stephen S. Trott,
Circuit Judges, and Bruce S. Jenkins,1 District Judge.
Order; Dissent by Judge Kozinski
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
Judge Trott voted to reject the petition for rehearing en banc
and Judges B. Fletcher and Jenkins so recommend.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en
_________________________________________________________________
1 Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Senior United States District Judge for the
District of Utah, sitting by designation.
14901
banc. An active Judge requested a vote on whether to rehear
the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of
the votes in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P.
35.
The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for
rehearing en banc is rejected.
_________________________________________________________________
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges KLEINFELD
and TASHIMA join, dissenting from the order rejecting the
suggestion for rehearing en banc:
Robots again. In White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971
F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992), we held that the right of pub-
licity extends not just to the name, likeness, voice and signa-
ture of a famous person, but to anything at all that evokes that
Et Al. United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
TITLE AND CITATION: United States of America v. Raymond J. Place 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
In 2008, the Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that Washington D.C gun law violated the Second Amendment. The reason why it violated individuals Second Amendment was because the law banned the possession of handguns. The Heller v. District of Columbia case brief is what led to McDonald v. Chicago. Otis McDonald is a resident of Chicago; he lived in his neighborhood for many years. But after the increase in crime, he felt the need to own a handgun despite of him already legally owning rifles and shotguns. He believed owing a handgun would be more useful when it comes down to him trying to protect himself. Yet, the City of Chicago has a requirement that requires all handguns to be registered with the city in order for the
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
The state legislature and the United States Congress codify the United States legal system. Each Jurisdiction in the United States defines “crime” in its own legal code and sets the appropriate punishments. According to the text, criminal law is defines as “the body of rules that define crimes, set out their punishments, and mandate the procedures for carrying out the criminal justice process. In the United States all suspects are found innocent until proven guilty under the court of law.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
Facts: Alton Lemon took David Kurtzman to court with the support of a number of interest groups including the Pennsylvania Civil liberties union and the NAACP in hopes the court would find a law in Pennsylvania unconstitutional. This said law, the Nonpublic Elementary and secondary education act, had allowed Kurtzman to “purchase” educational services for private schools, and could use tax money to reimburse private school for the cost of salaries as well as books and supplies. The state agreed to provide funding as long as the money went towards secular expenses, meaning the books and supplies that were meant for teaching the same courses that were taught in public schools. In order to receive money, there had to be records of secular expenses and non secular expenses. This act began to be able to be put to use in July of 1968. Ultimately, “96% of the nonpublic school students attended religious schools, primarily roman catholic”(Epstein. Walker 147). In Rhode Island, there was a similar law, the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act, where 15% of the teachers salaries were funded to contribute to private schools, as long as no religious classes were taught. It turned out though that 95% of the
COMES NOW the defendant, Douglas Davis, through counsel, and moves to suppress evidence of possession of a controlled substance that resulted from a search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy from unreasonable search and seizures.
(NOTE: The appeal is pending before the United States Circuit Court for the Middle Circuit. The docket number assigned to this case on appeal is: 14-12)
The court was in unanimous agreement of the decision. They rejected the defendant’s appeals for retrial, motion for JNOV (Judgment notwithstanding verdict), rejected their motion for remittur (reduction of punitive damages granted by jury). The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff.
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
Canadian intergovernmental relations are complicated due to many factors including the division of powers between the federal and provincial government. It is widely known that the Constitution Act, 1867 laid out the powers and jurisdiction of the federal and provincial government. In order for the Constitution to be upheld and followed, a national court was needed. Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie and parliament enacted the Supreme Court Act which created a final Canadian Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada which was composed of one Chief Justice and five puisne Justices (Iacobucci, 28). However, the number of Judges in the Supreme Court has risen to nine, which includes the Chief Justice. The Justices are chosen from throughout Canada “so that the judges would bring a rich diversity of experience and understanding to the Court (Iacobucci, 32). Functions of the Supreme Court of Canada include interpreting the Constitution including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, judicial review, and determining the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Supreme Court of Canada has had a significant role in determining the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments; therefore, has made how the country of Canada the way it is today. The role of the Supreme Court of Canada has changed throughout history, having different effects on the Canadian government. The interpretation of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments by the Supreme Court has changed substantially through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, peace, order and good government clause, province inabilities, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013
Supreme Court Cases Engle vs. Vitale Case: In the late 1950's, the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park, Long Island, a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause. Constitutional issue relating to Freedom of Religion.
Although federal agencies are normally likely to win when they appear before the Supreme Court, it is not clear what affects the outcome of the cases. Several factors are thought to play a role and scholars seek to identify and explain them, but it is difficult because the Court changes over time. A key theme seen in all of the articles is to determine if the justices’ ideological and policy preferences affect the outcome of the case. By looking at articles published by Crowley (1987), Deen (2005), Richards (2006), Sheenan (1990; 1992), Smith (2007) and Tanenhaus (1960), the coverage of different types of agencies, time periods, key factors in decision making, and consistency will better explain variations in the overall rate of success.