Clarendon County, South Carolina — Briggs v. Elliot: Began in 1947 when Reverend Joseph Albert DeLaine wanted free bus transportation for his three children. Initially targeting equality and not integration, Marshall visited and in 1949, 20 plaintiffs demanded equal treatment across the board in transportation, buildings, teachers' salaries and educational materials. The case was named Briggs after the first plaintiff in alphabetical order and Elliot was the chairman of the school district. There were 47 black students in a class, to 28 white. There were no bathrooms or electricity at the black schools.
Public colleges and universities in the United States use a variety of factors to determine which students will be accepted. Universities often want a student body with diverse academic interests, talents, and backgrounds. They consider factors such as applicants’ grades, standardized test scores, community service, athletic or musical ability, and geographic location. Sometimes, universities also consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity. This case is about whether the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.
Fisher v. Texas “Universities all over the country are breathing a sigh of relief,” Sherrilyn Ifill ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The final decision of the court case Fisher v. Texas, ruled against student Abigail Fisher; rejecting her opinion that colleges taking in consideration of race as a factor of acceptances is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment ("Fisher v University of Texas Syllabus”). This means that, when deciding among a pool of qualified applicants, a university can consider an applicant’s race, along with his or her test scores, grades, such things as extracurricular activities, athletic or musical ability, and special achievements outside school. Miss Fisher filed a suit after being outraged that she was declined by the color of her skin ("Fisher v. University of Texas”).
The efforts Edina Broward made to research about her stolen painting will probably considered as diligent efforts which prevent statute of limitation from starting to run. Ms.Broward tried to find her stolen painting by many means. First of all, The police was notified by her as well as a private investigator was hired to help to find the stolen painting. Similar to Everett v. Rogers, where the owner of stolen painting informed the police and was going to hire private investigator.
Caption: Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U. S. ____ (2015). In this case, Brumfield, the petitioner, wants the United States Supreme Court to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Facts: Kevan Brumfield was convicted of murder of Betty Smothers, and was sentenced to death by a Louisiana court. This court decision was made before ruling that the 8th Amendment prohibits execution of the intellectually disabled under Atkins v. Virginia. Using the Atkins Mandate, in State v. Williams (2001), the Louisiana Supreme Court decided a hearing must take place to decide if Williams was actually intellectually disabled.
In U.S. v. Jones, Antoine Jones owned a popular nightclub in the District of Columbia. As the police department and FBI had reasonable suspicion to believe that cocaine trafficking was taking place in the club, law enforcement enabled strict surveillance. The strict surveillance consisted of cameras around the nightclub, officers obtained a warrant to implement device to register phone numbers of anyone calling Jones or calls Jones made and installed a wiretapping device. In addition, the officers installed a GPS tracking device in Jones vehicle, to install this device the officers had to obtained a warrant that allowed the GPS to be installed for ten days in the District of Columbia. However, as the car traveled to Maryland the officers changed
In McClesky v. Kemp the Supreme Court held that a study showing the death penalty in Georgia was imposed on black defendants disproportionately to white defendants failed to establish that any of the decision makers involved in the process acted with a discriminatory purpose. McClesky is a notable case in several respects. First, it highlighted the integrated nature of the criminal justice system and how each component functions to reach a certain result. Second, it emphasized the debate on which actors in the justice system have the most power and what role that power plays in reaching the result. Third, the case also underscored the importance on prosecutors keeping records of their decisions at varying stages of the criminal justice process.
The late 1960’s and early 1970’s was a time of unrest in the United States. America was in the middle of a civil rights movement, American racism was nearly at its breaking point. In 1968 Martin Luther King, a civil rights activist, was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. That same year the Association of American Medical Colleges made a recommendation to open up nearly twelve percent to first year medical school classes to minority students(McNeese pg. 14).
“Civil rights are rights that constitute free and equal citizenship and include personal, political, and economic rights” (Altman). Discrimination is defined as denying someone these rights based off of race, sex, ethnicity, etc. Affirmative action was put into place to ensure equal representation and fair treatment of minorities in college admission policies. Since it began, it has increased the number of minorities admitted into colleges and has made it harder for average white Americans to be admitted. Many have begun to argue reverse discrimination, particularly after the Bakke case.
I. QUESTION PRESENTED What is the impact of Mr. Roberts and Ms. Turley holding their new home as joint tenants in a community property state? II. SHORT ANSWER By opting to hold the new home as joint tenants in a community property state, the couple will realize the higher level of creditor protection afforded by a joint tenancy but will lose the significant tax benefits afforded under the community property tax regime.
The District of Columbia’s desegregation case was based on the boycott of the black high school that was overcrowded and in a condition of desperation. Since the District of Columbia was a federal territory, the Fourteenth amendment was not applicable towards the justification of the case’s position. Lawyers of the case selected a different approach of consolidating the Fifth Amendment, which guaranteed the equal protection of the law maintaining the same manner of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision of Bolling v. Sharpe was simultaneously decided with Brown v. Board of Education, issuing the segregation itself was considered to be unconstitutional. The court ruled the African Americans in the District of Columbia were repudiated of the due process clause under the Fifth Amendment for the reasoning there was no vindication of the