ruled that Tuskegee city officials redrew the cities boundaries unconstitutionally so that the white candidates in the cities political race could win and the blacks’ votes would not count. This case laid the framework for the passage of the 1965 voters rights act which outlawed discrimination in voting. The case was named after a Tuskegee university professor Charlie A. Gomillion who was the plaintiff and the defendant was the mayor of Tuskegee Phillip M. Lightfoot. Gomillion tried to make it easier
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States American Civil War
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
Case Brief Funk vs. United States Supreme Court of the United States 290 U.S. 371‚ 54 S. Ct. 212 (1933) Facts: Funk was tried twice and convicted both times in Federal District Court for conspiracy to violate the prohibition law. In the first appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the decision of the Federal District Court was reversed due to issues not applicable here. 46 F.2d 417. In both trials the defendant called upon his wife to testify on his behalf and she was excluded
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States
Case Brief Saenz v Roe (1999) 1. Facts The facts of the Saenz V Roe case is that in 1992 the state of California wanted to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program by setting a limit to new residents. By having this approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and having the Federal District Court implement it‚ there would a large number of new residents who would be treated unequally. By the time it became into law on April 1‚ 1997 a class action was filed to challenge
Premium United States Law Supreme Court of the United States
Case Brief Summary: Marbury v. Madison Robert L. Broadwater PAD 525 Strayer University Dr. O’Neal July 09‚ 2012 Summary of Marbury v. Madison‚ 5 U.S. 137‚ 1 Cranch 137‚ 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Facts The incumbent president Federalist John Adams was defeat in the presidential election by Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. The day before leaving office‚ President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. This was
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
Case Brief Assignment: State v. Kelbel Monique Ramirez JS 143 Professor Peterson Case: State v. Kelbel Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder‚ past pattern of child abuse‚ in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder‚ in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19‚ subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed‚ and argued that the district court failed to instruct
Premium Jury Law Murder
MARVIN V. MARVIN Citation. 18 Cal. 3d 660‚557 P.2d 106‚134 Cal. Rptr. 815‚1976 Cal. Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff and defendant lived in a nonmarital relationship‚ with an oral agreement to share equally all property accumulated. Upon dissolution of their relationship‚ plaintiff brought suit to enforce the oral agreement. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The California court found that partners in nonmarital relationships may bring claims for property division based on both express and implied contracts
Premium Common law Contract Law
Case Title: Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Citation: [2003] UKHL 50 Procedural History (PH): The appellants were charged on 22nd August 2000; without lawful excuse damaged by fire; commercial premises and being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The appellants stood trial before Judge Maher in March 2001. The appellants’ case at trial was that they expected the fire to extinguish itself on the concrete
Premium Mind Criminal law Mens rea
United States v. Jones‚ United States Supreme Court (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945 Facts of the Case Respondent Jones was a subject of a Government investigation in part of a much larger drug trafficking conspiracy. As part of the investigation‚ FBI agents had obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by Jones – a Jeep registered to Jone’s wife. The court order was issued in the District of Columbia and was set to expire 10 days after it was signed by the judge. On Day
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The People of the State of New York V. Donald L. McCray Nature of the Case: Appeal upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault on a police officer and criminal use of a firearm in the 2nd degree. Concise Rule of Law: Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 which permits persons who appear to be mentally ill and acting in a manner that threatens safety of self or others to be taken into custody. The Penal Law § 120.08 imposes strict liability with respect to the serious injury aspect
Premium Crime Law Mental disorder