Case: Lachance Vs Erickson

Mathews v. Eldridge is a case held by the United States Supreme Court that discussed about individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is significant in the development of American administrative law.

3-7: Arbitration (pg. 77) Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, the union that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Graza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. The arbitrator ordered de la Graza reinstated.

The State of New Jersey appealed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issue:  Does the Assistant Vice Principal have reasonable grounds to search the purse of T.L.O.? Holding: (6-3) The search was reasonable and the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.

The United States Supreme Court played significant role in deciding cases regarding property rights. Originally there were many misunderstandings between companies and individuals, corporate and private interests, Native Americans and U.S. laws. These misunderstandings created tensions between different parties and had to be resolved by the Supreme Court. There are many cases that deal with contracts, due process clause, or takings clause and different interests that were at stake; the four cases to review in detail are Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), University of North Carolina v. Foy (1805), Taylor v porter and Ford (1843), and Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren Bridge (1837).

In the Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548).

8. Principle of Law: The court states, the first of the City’s contentions is easily dismissed. The jury found that Bozeman had notice of the harassment, and it is well established that we must accept a jury’s factual finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. The City’s second claim—that as a matter of law Bozeman’s knowledge should not have been imputed to the City—poses a more significant question concerning the limits of potential liability under Title VII. This court has noted that “the type and extent of notice necessary to impose liability on an employer under Title VII are the subject of some uncertainty.”

Williamson v. City of Houston, 148 F. 3d 462, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1998) Facts: Linda Williamson worked as a police officer in a specialized division in the Houston Police Department. Williamson alleged a coworker, Doug McLeod, engaged in harassing behavior that created a hostile work environment for eighteen months. McLeod continued the harassing behavior after she told him it was offensive and to stop. Williamson reported McLeod’s harassment to their supervisor, Sergeant Bozeman.

Garrett Walters Government F.A.P. 12/6/16 Engel v. Vitale The Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, was an extremely controversial case that directly dealt with the First Amendment. Engel v. Vitale was such a controversial case that it has opened the doorway for other cases dealing with church and state. This Court case established a separation between church and state.

The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.

The final accusation basically restated previously mentioned fails to comply. The state argued that the business continued to operate under illegality due to the law previously set. It was the main argument for the state, yet was clearly set to deter the activity of the organization. The organization responded with a truthful statement.

“Shipp”). He was taken outside to the chants of the rest of the mob and was then marched to the Tennessee River, where he was thrown in (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). After waiting a couple minutes, Johnson was pulled up (Pfeifer, “Historic”). There were signs of life from Johnson, so the mob shot him (Pfeifer, “Historic”). His last words were: “God bless you all. I am innocent” (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). After the death of Ed Johnson, there was much protest from the blacks in the community (“Shipp”). As a result, the mayor of Chattanooga closed all saloons and deputized 200 men (“Shipp”). Even people outside of Chattanooga were affected by Johnson’s death (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). The Supreme Court was shocked and infuriated (Pfeifer, “Historic”). Justice Harlan stated that an order by the Supreme Court had not been obeyed by a community for the

Dred Scott was a slave who sued his owner. He claimed he was free because his previous owner had taken him to Illinois (a free state) where he argued before the court that Congress had banned slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The state of Missouri ended up finding Scott was going to be a slave, even though the previous decisions by Missouri favored the Emancipation Proclamation because slavery has become very popular within expansion issues and compromise issues.

Question Presented Under Massachusetts law, does Richard Melville a twelve-year-old boy, non-tenant of 666 Elm Street, a building owned by C.D. Management Corporation (“C.D Management”), assaulted in their basement, fall within the category of people that C.D. Management owes a duty of reasonable care? Brief Answer No, he does not. The rule in Massachusetts is that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to those that are lawfully on their property.

Klopfer vs North Carolina In 1967, Peter Klopfer, was an African-American biology professor at the University of Duke in North Carolina. One evening, he was present at a nonviolent sit in; which lead to his arrest later on for trespassing. This incident lead him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13.