United States V. Morrison Case Study

The attorneys failed to proffer any evidence in support of Solomon’s legal business enterprise, which he established with legal proceeds from the medical malpractice lawsuit. Furthermore, the attorneys never proffered any evidence on his behalf, which proved ownership, control, actual or constructive, or possession of the vehicles stopped by police. According to residents and property records, neither Johnson brother owned, occupied, possessed or control a property located at Oso. The property allegedly had $1,868,759 in cash and although such a very odd number, aside from questioning the veracity of the cash receipts, the indictment states that Mr. Solomon Johnson owned the vehicles, property, and currency.

Case 41 Tenn. 290, 1860 WL (Tenn.) Tally’s Ex’rs v. Smith Year: 1860, September Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee Parties Appellant: HENRY SMITH Respondent: The executors of DUDLEY TALLY, deceased Facts On October 1854, Dudley Tally entered into a Bill of Sale (a contract of sale), selling his property of seven slaves to Henry Smith. Tally was, at the time of sale, deteriorating in physical and mental capacity due to chronic illness and old age. Tally died in December 1854, just two months after the Bill was signed.

Korematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and  Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.

Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.

1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.

When trying to support my argument about legal doctrines being shaped by race during this time period the case of Korematsu v. United States has to be talked about. At the beginning of WWII President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, giving the U.S. military the right to ban thousands of Japanese-American citizens from areas thought of as critical to homeland security. Thus, setting up ‘interment camps’ to hold the Japanese for the duration of the war. Mr. Korematsu did not follow suit and decided to stay home in the state of California. The upholding of Korematsu’s conviction by the Supreme Court showed not only how threatened the country felt about Japanese immigrants but also put into question how equal everyone truly was in America.

The United States v. Lopez case was about Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student from San Antonio, who came to school carrying a hidden weapon. Under Texas law he was charged with possession of a firearm. Later on he was dismissed of this violation and was later charged with “federal criminal statute”. He was found violating “ The Gun-Free School Act”, which was created in 1990. His sentence was 6 months in prison and two years of being supervised while being released.

United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named

In 1913, E. Latham filed an petition against A. Stewart, a tax- collector of Fulton County to prevent him from collecting license taxes, however Georgia Supreme Court refused his petition to prevent the tax collector and deputy from collecting peddler’s tax claims due to GA. Civ. Cod der Ga. Civ. Code § 946.

In the case of the People versus Smith, it struggles with conflicts and balances. The verdict was decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The issue at hand was that the defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, argued that he should be re-sentenced because of the action of the presentence investigation report of his previously expunged juvenile record. The Court of Appeals in Michigan agreed with the defendant and required that Smith is sentenced again. However, The Supreme Court heard the case and reverses the decision stating that Smith did not need to be sentenced again on the basis of the inclusion of his juvenile record alone.

2. You are a new principal and are setting up interviews for a vacant position at your school. You will have an interview team comprised of 3 teachers, a parent and a board/ LSC member. You want to be sure they understand what questions can be asked of prospective employees and what is prohibited from being asked. You are working on the guidelines you will go through with the team regarding appropriate and inappropriate questions.

Chris Archer V. New Columbia I came to my decision of charging Chris Archer guilty of criminal hazing and not guilty on the count of first-degree murder. During the case the Attorneys definitely keep me assured of my decision. A reason I decided to charge Archer with hazing was because he was the head of a Fraternity and most of the witnesses agreed that there was hazing involved. A reason why I did not charge Mr. Archer with first-degree murder was because no sober person was there to witness the death of Milan.

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.

US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.