In the case of “Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States” involved the heart of Atlanta motel which is located in the state of Georgia whom refused to rent rooms to blacks. As a result of their actions congress enacted the “Civil Rights Act of 1964”‚ which made it illegal for motels‚ hotels to discriminate guests based on their race. The heart of Atlanta motel brought action to declare the “Civil Right Act of 1964” was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court
Premium
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes‚ Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the "necessary and proper" clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word "expressly" particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution‚ because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Summarize Morrissey v. Brewer In 1972‚ the Supreme Court came to an agreement that the number of due process rights are to a person who is constitutionally entitled and that is straight related to potential that can outcome the rights. Coming from a criminal case these cases have the biggest amount of loss potential that the total of liberty may be forfeited by creating the liberty interest. The liberty interest is a concept that requires due process procedures whenever any type of freedom is at
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Law
Supreme Court Case‚ MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE‚ dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process. 2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that prior to the disenrollment of Social Security disability benefit payments that the recipient has an opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing? 3. Eldridge’s case relied on the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) “Unreasonable search and seizures” One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
In the case Gonzales v. Raich‚ Angel Raich‚ which is from California‚ was charged with home-grown‚ non-commercial use of medical marijuana. Raich has inoperable brain tumor‚ seizures‚ and chronic pain disorders. Raich has been prescribed medical marijuana 5 years before the cases even came up in court. Raich has to depend on 2 caregivers to grow the medical marijuana for her because of her condition. Before Gonzales v. Raich case came up‚ California passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996. With
Premium
Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United States v. Dentsply International‚ Inc.‚ Court: United States of Appeals‚ Third Circuit. Date: Argued September 21‚ 2004. February 24‚ 2005 Citation: 399 F.3d 181 Facts: This is an antitrust case that the defendant- Dentsply international‚ Inc.‚ is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates
Premium United States Competition law Competition
Miranda V. Arizona‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda V. Arizona is case where Mr. Ernesto Miranda who was suspected for kidnapping and rape of 18 years old woman. After Mr. Miranda is arrested and identified by victim‚ police interrogated him for two hours and he confessed the crime. However at time he signed a confession he was not aware of his rights. No one told him his rights to remain silent nor informed him that his statement would be used against him. Although‚ when he put his confession into
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States