Legally Noted

• Home
• Features
• Get Started
• Attractive Nuisance
• Answer Board
• Groups
• Blog
• RSS

→ Notes

Total results found 8

   1 2 > >>

Equal Protection Week 4 Notes

Equal Protection; Equal Protection Analysis: 1) Determine the Classificatory basis 2) S 3) See if theres a reason not to use that level 4) Apply level of scrutiny as to purpose 5) Apply level of scrutiny as to means

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 15 May 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

Constitutional Law Review

How good a fit does there have to be between means and purpose? • Challenged acts that go too far • Overbroad regulation of speech o Overbreadth --- too broad • In 1st Amendment cases: o Ct. doesn’t want to chill free speech o Can be challenged on an overbreadth ground even by a person who would not be affected • Person who would be properly regulated under the Act, can still sue o Person doesn’t even need to or could show an injury can still challenge an Overbroad regulation of speech

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 15 May 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

Constitutional Law Short Outline of casebriefs

Excellent synopsis of all important cases and topics including: Plessy: Upheld separate but equal railway passenger cars, 14th protects political, not social – no badge of inferiority here Brown: Held separate educational activities are inherently unequal, creates a badge of inferiority; the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities Loving: There is a fundamental right to marry because it has long been recognized (tradition) as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men Korematsu: Upheld the relocation of Jap-Americans. All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, but not necessarily unconst. They are subject to strict scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions and here it does because of the threat of Japanese attack Hernandez: Invalidated law that was neutral on its face, but in application excluded Mexicans from jury service in all 25 years; minorities don’t need proportionate representation, but they can’t be systematically excluded Richmond: Held that strict scrutiny should be used in evaluating state and local affirmative action programs. Ct invalidated a Richmond, Virginia plan to set aside 30% of public works monies for minority owned businesses – not narrowly tailored because the plan did not identify the specific need for remedial action Grutter: Upheld Michigan Law School policy of using race as a plus factor in admission of students to promote diversity; the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit this narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further the school's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefit of diversity Gratz; Johnson; Frontiero; Craig; VMI; Miller; Feeney; Yick Wo; Davis; Arlington Heights; Cleburne; Slaughterhouse; Lochner; West Coast Hotel; Meyer; Pierce; Griswold; Troxel; Roe; Planned Parenthood; Bowers; Lawrence; Goldberg; Roth; Matthews v. Eldridgw; DeShaney; Boddie; Kras; Rodriguez; MLB; New York Times v. US; Ashcroft; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; O’Brien; Texas v. Johnson; Moseley; Ward

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 14 September 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

Constitutional Law II Finals 2 page study sheet

Excellent synopsis of all important cases and topics including: Plessy: Upheld separate but equal railway passenger cars, 14th protects political, not social – no badge of inferiority here Brown: Held separate educational activities are inherently unequal, creates a badge of inferiority; the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities Loving: There is a fundamental right to marry because it has long been recognized (tradition) as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men Korematsu: Upheld the relocation of Jap-Americans. All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect, but not necessarily unconst. They are subject to strict scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions and here it does because of the threat of Japanese attack Hernandez: Invalidated law that was neutral on its face, but in application excluded Mexicans from jury service in all 25 years; minorities don’t need proportionate representation, but they can’t be systematically excluded Richmond: Held that strict scrutiny should be used in evaluating state and local affirmative action programs. Ct invalidated a Richmond, Virginia plan to set aside 30% of public works monies for minority owned businesses – not narrowly tailored because the plan did not identify the specific need for remedial action Grutter: Upheld Michigan Law School policy of using race as a plus factor in admission of students to promote diversity; the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit this narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further the school's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefit of diversity Gratz; Johnson; Frontiero; Craig; VMI; Miller; Feeney; Yick Wo; Davis; Arlington Heights; Cleburne; Slaughterhouse; Lochner; West Coast Hotel; Meyer; Pierce; Griswold; Troxel; Roe; Planned Parenthood; Bowers; Lawrence; Goldberg; Roth; Matthews v. Eldridgw; DeShaney; Boddie; Kras; Rodriguez; MLB; New York Times v. US; Ashcroft; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; O’Brien; Texas v. Johnson; Moseley; Ward

College/University: The John Marshall Law School--Chicago

Date Added: 14 September 2009

0.0

0 Vote(s)

CALLANO V. OAKWOOD PARK HOMES COR

law school case brief, contracts, contract law case brief, quasi-contract, A party must be in a direct relationship with another or there must be a mistake on the part of the person conferring the benefit to claim restitution under quasi-contract law.

College/University: Case Brief

Date Added: 17 February 2010

0.0

0 Vote(s)