These two court cases are the same by dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment. On the case of Loving & Virginia, they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the freedom of choice to marry and not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations; the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state. Virginia violated the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. Another similarity was that they both had to deal with marriages.
as a whole” test laid down by Lindley MR in Allen as inappropriate in the context of competing rights and interests of shareholders.18 The court drew a distinction between two different types of constitutional alterations. For alterations not involving “expropriation of shares or of valuable proprietary rights attaching to shares” it is sufficient if the special resolution is passed regularly, is not ultra vires, not beyond any purpose contemplated by the constitution nor oppressive.19 With respect to alterations that do involve expropriation of shares, or valuable proprietary rights attached to shares, different considerations apply. The majority laid down a twopronged test, holding that amendments to the constitution permitting expropriation are only permissible if: • the power is exercisable for a proper purpose; and • its exercise will not operate oppressively in relation to minority shareholders.20 Ibid at 386. Contra this reasoning see Brett W King, “Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and Minority Shareholder Protection” (1996) 21 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 895 at 907. 13 Vanessa Mitchell, “Gambotto and the Rights of Minority Shareholders” (1994) 6 Bond Law Review 92 at 102.
Holding: A vote of (9-0) in favor of Loving 1. Yes. Reasoning: Chief Justice Warren delivered the unanimous decision that the Virginia anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that even though the State showed that the statute punished both participants equally, it did not constitute “an invidious discrimination based upon race.” The Court states that at the very least, “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications… be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny’… and… they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination…” This requires that there be rigid scrutiny when the States drafts a statute that could infringe on “invidious discrimination,” and also requires that the State provide legitimate government interest. Finally, the Court shows
To sum—The law’s “disparate treatment” character demands that no employer discriminate in employment and promotion practices based on “race.” The “disparate impact” provision demands that an employer be held liable if any employment practice, whether transparent or hidden, results in discrimination. It is a noble, but flawed, attempt to reconcile circumstances where employers once used insidious, opaque methods to continue old habits of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. The problem presented by Ricci v. DeStefano is: What happens when the targets of discrimination are “white”? Again, there are many who make the emotional argument that such a circumstance is impossible. ‘Whites are the majority,’ they contend.
Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings. Prior to this ruling, an individual accused of violating state law could rely only on that specific state’s protection against double jeopardy. Some states offered greater protection against double jeopardy then others do, and commonly the level of protection offered is less than that offered under the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court said this was impermissible. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect individuals from being subjected to the threat of trial and possible conviction for more than one time for an alleged offense.
The intention of Lord Langdale was to provide a means to ensure that a trust is easy to enforce and control and to prevent it becoming invalid. It also reinforced the general principle of law; that law must be certain. Certainty of Objects The House of Lord’s decision in McPhail v Doulton was regarding the test for certainty of objects. The purpose of a test for certainty of objects is to determine the beneficiaries of a trust; the test will differ depending on whether the trust is a fixed trust, discretionary trust or a power of appointment. McPhail v Doulton concerned a discretionary trust where Mr Baden executed a deed settling a non-charitable trust for the benefit of the staff of Matthew Hall & Co Ltd and their relatives and dependents, an issue arose as to the ‘object clause’ which identified the beneficiaries as ‘relatives’ and ‘dependants’, it was argued that these terms were uncertain and the validity of the trust was challenged.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
The requirement of reasonableness is set out in s 11 of the UCTA 1977, the main element of the test is that ….a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard of the circumstances which were or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. One of the issues which have arisen is the question of which view do the court take when a clause which combines both elements of an excluded liability which has been prohibited by an Act with one which is also subject to the test of reasonableness. An ambivalent
The reason is the information support by independent documentary evidence. Historical cost accounting figures are based on actual acquisition prices, not merely possible of market values that can be revised to affect the ratio analysis which improve the performance of financial results. That is, historical costs accounting provides an objective view of an entity’s performance. Thus it consider verifiable and reduces the risk of manipulation of figures by management. In contrast, if there is not active market, market value accounting requires the use of estimation subject to uncertain assumptions, personal judgment, and subjective information about future values, such as discount rates and allowance for doubtful accounts.
Main Claim The Defense of Marriage Act is an unconstitutional law. Republicans are defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Reasons 1. A federal district judge in NY rules the “Act” violates the Constitution because it charges federal estate tax to same-sex spouses but not to opposite-sex spouses. 2.