Essay on U.S. V. Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Complaint for Charge of Accessory after the fact in the crime of Credit Card Fraud

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

In 1934, a farmer named Thomas Lee Causby and his family bought a small farm eight miles west of Greensboro, North Carolina. They raised chickens on their three acre plot and made a living on the proceeds of the meat and eggs. A third of a mile away from Causby’s farm was an airfield. Linley Field, originally a pasture used by barnstormers, had opened in 1927. It was used as a mail stop and the home of the first passenger service in the Triad, until two near-crashes caused it to be ordered closed in 1935. Two years later, it reopened with two new paved, fixed runways —one of which pointed directly at the Causby’s farm. This meant that less than ten percent of the time, depending on the prevailing winds, the small single or double engine private planes using the airport would be taking off or landing right over the Causby’s heads. It could be noisy and distracting, but the planes were few and infrequent enough not to cause a great disturbance to the Causbys or their lives.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Christopher Simmons, who was seventeen years old, and two of his friends by the name of Charles Benjamin(fifteen years old) and John Tessmer (sixteen years old) had a detailed conversation about committing a murder. Christopher Simmons had a premeditated plan to which included, burglary (breaking and entering), robber and

clause (ii), and it is simply too unlike the provision's listed examples for the Court to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it. In the Courts opinion In our view, the provision's listed examples— burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives—illustrate the kinds of crimes that fall within the statute's scope. Their presence indicated that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Congress meant the statute to be all encompassing, it is

dealings with members of the Seattle police to secure the release of any of the

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American from Southampton, Virginia. Virginia at that time was a slave state. In 1843, Dred Scott traveled with his owner, John Emerson, who was an army surgeon, from a slave sate to Missouri. When John Emerson died in a slave state, Scott and his wife decided to sue to win their freedom in St. Louis federal Court. Because of his race, Dred Scott was denied to sue because he was stateless. The court case was argued on February 11-17th, 1856 and then reargued in December 15-17th. The case was then decided on March 6th, 1857 in the Missouri territory. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court for making their decision was that, enslaved African race were not intended to be included in the constitution, his racial background, and because slaves were considered as properties. So because

discriminatory animus by Cardinal Financial with regard to the declination to make a loan on the original terms. Thus, the circuit court looked correctly to the Substitute Trustees to advance, if it could, a nondiscriminatory reason for the denial.

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

It was the year of 1857 and a robust wind blew through the South as the air was filled with both victory and horrific disappointment. An ordinary man named Dred Scott began his journey for his rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scott’s struggle for freedom would come to make him one of the most famous plaintiffs in American history and a worldwide symbol for emancipation. Scott happened to be of African descent which was an extremely difficult obstacle to live with in early America. The Dred Scott decision made by the supreme court in March of 1857 negatively impacted the United States by empowering the South, contributing to the secession, and expediting the Civil War.

In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.