Today the land taken in the City of New London lies empty, as a result of the failing plans the NLDC constructed to economically revitalize New London. The Kelo v. City of New London case faced tremendous backlash because it allowed the federal government to seize anyone's property for supposed economic improvement rather than actual public use. This unintended backlash was so strong causing a majority of states to pass laws that were aimed at nullifying Kelo-style takings of private property. Richard Palmer, one of the state supreme court justices who voted with the majority, later apologized to Susette Kelo, telling her he “would have voted differently” had he known what would happen. (Somin).…
Due to the facts found by Mr. Robinson and the hearing outcome, he ordered that Mr. Sterne be restore to his original position and rank, and be compensated for any back pay and benefits that he had lost since his demotion. Additionally, Robinson found that there was irregularities with how the discipline was handed out and there was no due process and progressive discipline before demotion and loss of pay, thus Sterne was discriminated against an was due his return to his past position with back pay. This case again shows, specific issues with retaliation being taken against subordinates without due process and could actual fall into a Title VII Civil Rights Act case, but the District of Columbia has a Civil Process for adjudicating employee…
In this case of Illinois v. Wardlow, Sam Wardlow, a 44-year old black man was wrongly searched after he was apparently seen acting ‘suspicious’ when he ran after he saw four police cars driving up. He was then chased by Timothy Nolan, a veteran police officer, as he believed Wardlow as guilty. The officers believed him to be in a ‘high crime area’. They caught up to Wardlow and frisked him. During the search, they found a handgun.…
Case: Ewing v. California, 583 U.S. 11 (2003) — Facts: George Ewing walked into a pro shop of a Los Angeles County golf course where he concealed and stole three golf clubs priced at $399 a piece. Aside from this incident, Ewing had several prior convictions, four of which were serious, violent, and/or felonious. In this case, Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft and sentenced to 25 years to life under California’s three-strike law. Procedural History: the California Court of Appeal and the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The State Supreme Court denied review, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, as well as upheld the decisions of the lower courts.…
One of the most controversial cases in American History was the case of Dred Scott versus Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who lived with his owner, Doctor John Emerson in the free state of Illinois. Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, both had lived in a free state for a decade, and they decided to file for emancipation. Commonly, slaves would sue for their freedom if they had live in free territory for a long period of time. Their cases were not at first acknowledged because of the outbreak of cholera and backed up court schedules but eventually their case was heard, and the Scotts won favor.…
In the Kelo v. New London court case, Suzette Kelo and eight petitioners opposed a eminent domain taking “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city” (“Kelo” 472). Suzette Kelo claimed the “extensive improvements” that she had made on her house justified her ability to block this development plan (476). Others claimed that their “investment properties,” because they were not “blighted or otherwise in poor condition,” could not be taken by the government (476). Do Kelo’s and the other defendants’ claim to their property through proper maintenance and labor supersede the governments right to repossess the properties for economic development?…
In the case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the question of whether a group of students’ rights under the first amendment are violated is asked. These students had written articles for their school newspaper, which they had then submitted for review to their advisor, who passed the articles on to the principal, Robert Reynolds. Reynolds found two articles concerning, and with the approval of his superiors, eradicated the two pages that these articles were on from that publication of the newspaper. The principal’s deletion of these articles did violate the students’ rights under the 1st Amendment.…
While studying the case R. v Hauser, it is clear to see why it is known to be one of the leading constitutional decisions in understanding the workings of Peace, order and good governments in relation to a power struggle of jurisdiction. The whole case surrounds the question on whether the Attorney General, or the Attorney General of Canada should have the power to control the prosecution under the Federal Narcotics Control Act. It is a battle for powers of jurisdiction in regards to the criminal code, and more so the Narcotics Control Act; (NCA), 1961. The Narcotics Act was once Canada’s national drug control statue prior to its repeal in 1996 where the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act took its place. The NCA upheld an international treaty which prohibited the production, and supply of specific drugs; normally narcotics, unless given a licence for specific…
Kelo vs City of New London Kelo v. City of New London case involved the of abuse eminent domain by transferring land from one private owner to another (private owner) in the name of economic development. The case was judged by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided that private redevelopment plans can be considered "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as they benefited the general community because of economic growth qualified as a permissible. The issue started when in 1998 pharmaceutical giant Pfizer constructed a plant near Fort Trumbull.…
Milne v Harrower Milne v Harrower tackles the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour in s. 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Within this section it is stated that a person has committed the crime if their behaviour “would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm” , as well as the accused “intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm” . This definition was clarified in Smith v Donnelly , where it is stated he appellants behaviour had to be “severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community” . The accused; Colin Milne, Amy Lilburn, Beverly Milne, appealed against their conviction…
Case: Katzenbach v. Grant 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46756 *; 2005 WL 1378976 Facts: The Plaintiffs, Katzenbach and Osuna filed a lawsuit against Defendant Grant over a film and book rights. Grant owns a website called “thenightexposed” (www.thenightexposed.net). The Plaintiffs claim that Grant caused problems with negotiations with Sony Pictures and the USA Network. Plaintiff further claims that Grant sent a letter calling Osuna book a fake and made other defamatory articulations about the Plaintiffs on his website.…
Issue Is Bill Smith shown consideration by the Master of Fair Weather? Is TransPacific shipping Co Ltd Legally liable to pay Smith the 50% premium for sailing back to New Zealand on the Fair Weather voyage? Law…
Contracts are an integral part of society, having strong legal contractual principles gives confidence to consumers, investors and anyone who wishes to enter into a contract. Entering in a contract shows that in a primitive way that two parties are on the same page, however it is noted that a high proportion of litigation does actually stem from misunderstood contract (Duxbury (2011)).In this scenario Gary believes he has a valid contract with Mike and is disappointed to learn that Mike has sold on the Bike to Liz (third party). Using previous cases as precedent and analysing the conditions in which a contract is made, advice will be given to Gary on his legal position in regards to the contract and whether there is any suitable remedy that…
Creasey v Beechwood Creasey worked as the general manager of Welwyn Pty Ltd (Welwyn), which carried on the business of selling cars on premises owned by Beechwood Motors Ltd (Motors). Welwyn and Motors had common directors and shareholders, Ford and Seaman. Creasey was summarily dismissed by Selwyn and filed a claim for damages for unfair dismissal. Welwyn’s financial records indicated it was approaching insolvency and Creasey was informed that the company would likely cease trading soon. Motors took over the business of Welwyn and repaid Welwyn’s outstanding liabilities.…
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3B & S 826 Introduction The case of Taylor v Caldwell is a fundamental case in the area of frustration with regards to contract law. Taylor v Caldwell is an extremely important case, as Murray states, "frustration developed to alleviate harshness of absolute obligation rule". Frustration comes about in circumstances where the courts will discharge the parties of obligations under the contract, therefore meaning that the parties are not liable for any further obligations under the contract. Case Facts…