1) Essay Using the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), make the argument for legal formalism (original intent) of the Connecticut law banning contraceptive information or devices. Then make the opposite argument based on legal realism. The case came about when the state Planned Parenthood League opened a clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1961, two staff members, Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, were arrested and fined under a rarely used law for giving advice and a prescription[->0] for a contraceptive[->1] to a married couple. The defendant argued that she had a constitutional right to privacy that was violated by enforcement of the 1879 state law. (Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case.
Shortly thereafter, they were arrested for and found guilty of being accessories in the sale and distribution of illegal contraception. (T., G.R.) As required by law, they were fined one hundred dollars each and sentenced to jail time. Buxton and Griswold appealed the hearing to the Connecticut Supreme Court on the grounds that the law violated the United States Constitutional right to privacy. It was after appeal in 1965 that the Supreme Court finally heard their case, which after the 1943 Tileston v Ullman case that had attempted to make an appeal on the behalf of patient health, and the 1961 Poe v Ullman hearing in which a doctor and his patient sued because the law was unfair but they had not been harmed by the law so they had to dismiss the hearing.
Assignment #1Davis v. County Commissioners of Dona-Ana Davis v. County Commissioners of Dona-Ana Shunovia Crenshaw Instructor: Dr. Jean Gordon Business Employment Law HRM510 Date 4/22/2012 Abstract Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona-Ana was sued by a female complaining that they were liable for the abuse she received by Mr. Herrera. Mr. Herrera was hired by Mesilla Valley Hospital under the assumption that he was an outstanding person and they had received an exemplary report from his previous employer. Because of the reference they received they hired him. He resigned from the other job because he was accused of sexually abusing a female inmate while under his care. The plaintiff is suing because she feels that the detention center is liable for the actions of Mr. Herrera.
The tapes from the conversations were entered into the trial as evidence. Procedural History: Under the Fourth Amendment, the petitioner had decided to move so that the evidence could be suppressed but the trial denied this action. The petitioner then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals supported the conviction and believed that the evidence was admissible because there was no physical entrance into the petitioner’s home. Issue: What does the Fourth Amendment protect?
Memo To: Attorney Janet Jones From: Jennifer Calderone Date: 4/3/12 Re: Sherman vs. Church of the Divine Light CC: Professor Steven Zakrocki, Tort Law (PA310-01) Introduction: Mr. and Mrs. Rob Sherman want to sue the Church of the Divine Light for the negligent actions used by the church on their minor child, Rob Jr. The Sherman’s want to start legal proceedings against the church to cover the damages caused by the church in using unethical practices on their child. Tort law is a category of civil law, which provides protection against a civil wrong. The Sherman’s have hired us to determine if they will have a successful case against the Church of the Divine Light.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Right to Counsel Elsie M Farias CJA 364/ Criminal Procedure March 27, 2013 Professor Horwath Right to Counsel The Sixth Amendment of the United States constitution grants the right of a person accused of a crime the right to counsel to aid and represent themselves. This is known as the Right to Counsel. The Right to Counsel is founded on the Right to a fair trial. If a defendant is unable to retain their own counsel, they have the right to request one to be appointed to them. The defendant also has the right to not retain or request a lawyer and this turns their representation to Pro Sea which basically means one waives all their rights.
On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress. Soon after, Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Hudson then filed an appeal which brought the case to the Supreme Court. Provision of the constitution involved in this case: This case involves the exclusionary rule which comes directly from the Fifth Amendment. It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant.
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they said that prior restraint, except in rare cases, is unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment. However, it cited when prior restraint can be used, including that, “…primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.” Minnesota lawmakers were later able to shut down Neal’s paper for
Contracts 616, Assignment # 2 Rizardo #6698 Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352,123 A.2d 316,1956 Md. LEXIS 469(Md.1956) Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland/ Opinion by Judge Delaplaine Judicial History: Boehm filed bastardy charges against Fiege with the Criminal Court of Baltimore. However, Fiege was acquitted of bastardly charges due to a blood test confirming he was not the father. Boehm also filed a claim over a breach of contract against Fiege with the Superior Court of Baltimore City.