Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
Overview of Clements v. State The case of Clements v. State is an example of how the legal framework of stalking laws in Texas should be interpreted and the effectiveness of this law to ensure justice for the victims. The case depicts how the law should operate despite certain vagueness in aspects of the First Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas to uphold the conviction while disagreeing with some conclusions arrived at by the trial court proves that stalkers will not be allowed to slide through cracks in the legal system. The case, based on a sequence of events where the complainant, Jennifer Clements, was subject to psychological trauma accompanied by an imminent physical threat to her from Nathan Clement, her estranged husband, is a forthright condition of stalking which complies with the Statues of
Question II: Adam Audrey v. Kevin Swanson In order to regulate the alarming increase popularity of cosmetic surgery, Congress enacted the Federal Cosmetic Surgery Protection Act (FCSPA). Kevin Swanson, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is charged with the enforcement of FCSPA. Under this legislation “A person is not permitted to undergo a major cosmetic surgery procedure, except where necessary for the physical health of the person or to correct a major physical abnormality that interfere with normal appearance, unless approved by Congress a Cosmetic Surgery Approval (CSA) panel created at each facility licensed to perform cosmetic surgery”.
The Citizens United Ruling made by Supreme Court in 2010 only made the issue of money ruling the elections worse. Its main effects, stated in the video, “paved the way” for big corporations or unions to spend as much money as they feel necessary in elections and the political process. They can utilize this rule through advertisements, messages, and many different ways of communication to potential and up and coming voters. It changed the way campaigns were carried out by not only putting a bigger emphasis on the political spending from candidates and outside organizations, but also in a sense demerits the aspect of democracy, with having the amount money spent on a campaign be noticed more than the voices of the people. Voting does not really represent the country, but rather, represents the rich and powerful of the country.
People all over the world, in their own way all share the same goal of acceptance. The reality of this goal, is that a lot of people are not accepted. In the stories “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion” by William Brennan, and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, and in the film Bullied by Bill Brummel, they all show examples of how some people are not accepted. They are not accepted in the stories, because they are different then others and people make opinions about them without knowing them. These selections show when people are not accepted, they will feel depressed and unwanted.
Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision Madelyn M. Von Wald Department of English, Harrisburg High School Composition 250 Mrs. Jessica Berg May 19, 2023 Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision A jury condemned an innocent man to his death eighty-six years ago and his guilt still comes into question to this day.
According to an article on Law.com, The Lockheed Martin Corporation was ordered “To pay $51.5 million, including $ 50 million in punitive damages, in an age discrimination suit”. (Toutant, 2017) The plaintiff in the case, a former engineer at Lockheed Martin accused the company of laying of older workers to hire younger workers for the same positions. Robert Braden, plaintiff, also alleged the company never provided a reason or manner in which they decided who they would lay off. While the article is does not specifically mention the facts that were presented in court, one must conclude based on the outcome of the case, that there was sufficient evidence by the plaintiffs or lack of explanation by the defense which led the jury to decide in the favor of the jury.
Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
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.
A couple of weeks back word spread that one of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices had passed. Antonin Scalia is one of nine Supreme Court justices and his position in the Courts conservative wing. Since Scalia 's passing and for the likely future, the court has to function with eight justices, four appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans. Scalia 's passing means not just the loss of the court 's main conservative voice but also increases the likelihood of a divide on controversial issues.
The office of the attorney general however, won summary judgement by showing the court that Levin was not a qualified employee. Levin lost the case due to lack of performance and expertise. This case is an example of “Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967” which fall under anti-discrimination laws. According to the article “Employment Law—Age Discrimination—Seventh Circuit Holds that the ADEA Does Not Preclude”, it states