Employment Division V Smith Case Summary

Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.

The Supreme Court found, after analysis of the case, that they did in fact commit an error. The main issue was the misinterpretation of the Daubert/Wilt standard by the trial court. The significance of the Daubert/Wilt standard is to provide a framework for determining the reliability of expert testimony. The court using the Daubert/Wilt standard checks to determine whether the expert used a methodology recognized by the scientific community for rendering their expert opinion and whether this methodology was correctly applied. If it was and the scientific expert is deemed qualified then the testimony is considered reliable and can be used at trial.

The court ruled eight-to-one, with Justice Antonia Scalia delivering majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia said there was not much to think when he heard about the case. He said Abercrombie clearly did not hire Elauf because of her accomodating her religious practice. The justices believed religion should not be involved when deciding who to hire. The only time it might be condidered is when hiring people who is practicing their religion would make the company to have “undue harship”.

Marina Vinnichenko Term Paper: Court Case Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) stands out as the case within which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly extended the pernicious doctrine of “separate but equal”. In this case the issue was whether the state of Mississippi was required to provide a Chinese citizen equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment when he was taxed to pay for public education but was forced to send his daughter to a school for children of color. Mаrtha Lum, the child of the plаintiff of the case, was a citizen of the United States аnd a child of immigrants from China. She enrolled in and аttended the local public consolidated high school at the age of 9, but was told midway through her first day that

The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which supported the ruling of the appeals

The ruling was later change by the review panel of judges in the Supreme Court, who found out that the law was

The legal action before the court is a case that describes conflict with the People v. Smith concerning the laws that expunge a young offender’s juvenile criminal record. The defendant was charged with unlawful entry onto property and with being a repeat offender of offenses that are in violation and punishable by law. It was determined by the court that Smith is a habitual offender and he received a sentence of imprisonment. Point in fact is the defendant made a guilty plea to charges of breaking and entering and being a repeat offender by his own admission. Smith’s attorney stated the ruling was put in place to protect the people living in society and to be an example in order to discourage others from perpetrating the same kind of illegal or dishonest behavior.

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

The case of People v. Smith in the Supreme Court of Michigan was a landmark case for the state. With the court determining its holdings on the lower trial courts sentencing guidelines and practices concerning the use of juvenile criminal records in adult criminal cases (People v. Smith, 437 Mich. 293 (1991)). The State of Michigan did file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan concerning the decision by the Lower Court of Appeals in the case of Ricky Smith. The lower court did uphold the conviction of Smith, but did overturn his sentence and remanded him to a new sentencing hearing. The court viewed the use of his juvenile criminal record to violate Michigan state law.

The Supreme Court did indeed find that the case was solid and it was obvious the inmate was definitely subject to cruel and unusual punishment. The eight amendment was found to be violated by the Texas Department of Corrections. The Supreme Court came to a decision which was in favor of the defendant because after the Supreme Court had reviewed the case there was definitely a failure by the Texas Department of Corrections to provide the inmate with the proper medical care that he indeed needed bad and did not receive. The Estelle V. Gamble nevertheless did developed valid points and did have real evidence of his mistreatment. The Estelle V. Gamble case did establish the principle that the

The Gitlow case is a landmark case of United States history and fundamental in the protection of civil liberties. The judgment resulted in three major milestones in civil rights. First, it extended the protection of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech to the states, rather than being reserved only to the federal government. Second, the Gitlow case marked the beginning of a pattern of “incorporation”, further extending constitutional rights to the states. Finally, the judgement of the case was a major stepping stone towards future developments of political equality.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers have to provide health care for their employees at no cost (Fuller, 2014). Along with Conestoga Wood Specialities, Hobby Lobby felt like this law was violating their religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Fuller, 2014). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 states that the government cannot restrict an individual’s religious freedom (Hobby). More specifically, the issue at hand in the lawsuit against the Health and Human Service (HHS) Mandate, was whether for-profit corporations have a right to exercise their religious freedom under the Restoration Freedom Act (Fuller, 2014). After many hearings in court and prayers from the Green family, the case was taken to the highest court in the land (Fuller-Gryboski, 2014).

The decision in 2008 Court of Appeals case Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service made it clear that emotivism and authoritarianism, rather than the need for logic and rational justification, have been behind the Court’s claimed inability to respond when justice and fairness demand consideration of competing goods or principles. The court ruled that the use of recycled wastewater on sacred tribal land does not constitute a substantial burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (court case), which showed that the majority’s opinion misstates the law under RFRA, fails to prevent intrusions on religion protected by RFRA, and misunderstands religious belief and practice. RFRA creates a protected interest in the exercise of religion. (Quimbee.

For this reason, they refuse to salute the flag. This court case has a dramatic impact on the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding religious liberty under the First and Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court overruled its decision Minersville School District vs Gobitis (8-1). These two court cases are very similar but the outcomes of the case were opposite.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.