Who was Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy was amongst the most prolific and notorious serial killers to exist within the United States; while undertaking a murderous rampage spanning almost a decade – in addition to 6 individual States – a finalized determination of Ted Bundy’s Victims has yet to be set forth. Law enforcement agents suggest that Ted Bundy’s Victims may span from 25 to 115 individuals. Subsequent to his conviction, Ted Bundy was sentenced to death in the Starke Correctional Institution in the State of Florida; he was executed by electrocution on January 24th, 1989.

Who was a Ted Bundy Victim?

A Ted Bundy Victim is classified as females ranging between the ages of 20 and 25; typically, a Ted Bundy Victim was enrolled within a local college or university; the following is a list of Ted Bundy’s victims:

Joni Lenz – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1974)

Linda Ann Healy – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Donna Gail Manson – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Susan Elaine Rancourt – – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Roberta Parks – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Brenda Ball – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Georgeann Hawkins – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Nancy Wilcox — Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Melissa Smith – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Laura Aime – Ted Bundy Victim; assault and abduction (1974)

Carol DaRonch – Ted Bundy Victim; assault and abduction (1974)

Debra Kent – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Janice Ott – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Denise Naslund – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Caryn Campbell – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Julie Cunningham – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Denise Oliverson – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Lynette Culver – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Susan Curtis – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Lisa Levy – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Margaret Bowman – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Karen Chandler – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Kathy Kleiner – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Cheryl Thomas – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Kimberly Leach – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1978)

Who is Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy, who was born as Theodore Robert Cowell, was a serial murderer who was convicted of the murder, rape, and kidnapping of his victims; Ted Bundy’s murderous spree lasted approximately 10 years from its inception until his arrest in the State of Florida. Although Ted Bundy had confessed to approximately 30 murders, reports have been issued citing Ted Bundy’s guilt in murders ranging from 26 to 115 in number.

Ted Bundy Profile

The following outlines the life and crimes of Ted Bundy

Date of Birth: Ted Bundy was born on November 24th, 1946 in Burlington, Vermont; he executed by the State of Florida on January 24th, 1989

Residence: Ted Bundy is recorded as changing locations and residences with regard to the location of the murders that he had committed; typically, Ted Bundy would target females enrolled in local colleges and universities located in the area of his residence – his residences have included between 5 and 6 States

Year of First Killing: Due to the heinous nature of his crimes, as well as his methods of the disposal of his victims, there has never been an official determination as to the year in which Ted Bundy’s first murder had taken place; currently, 1974 is considered to be the most accurate year in which his murders began – this involved an 18 year old female student at the University of Washington on January 4th, 1974

Year of Apprehension: On February 15th, 1978, Ted Bundy was arrested in the State of Florida subsequent to him traveling in his vehicle and undergoing a traffic stop by a Florida State Trooper; upon investigating the make and model of the vehicle, Ted Bundy’s care was reported as being stolen – after a briefly resisting physical apprehension, Ted Bundy was placed under arrest

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Ted Bundy; in addition, these case details were made mention within Ted Bundy’s criminal trial:

Prior to his execution, Ted Bundy’s lawyer had mentioned that Ted Bundy may have been responsible for an abduction offense possibly occurring in 1969; however, this was never proven

Ted Bundy’s psychological assessment performed by a court psychiatrist had attributed depression, psychotic episodes, and rage to be the primary facilitators of his crimes; Ted Bundy had expressed that his grandparents – individuals who were responsible for his caretaking – were emotionally abusive

Locations of the Murders: Ted Bundy confessed to murders taking place in Washington State, Florida, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado

Victims:  Ted Bundy was charged for the murder of 12 murders; however, he has been linked to as many as 115 murders

Status as a Serial Killer: Ted Bundy is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Ted Bundy was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month

Nature of Victims: Ted Bundy’s victims were classified as females, who ranged in age; his primary victims were female students enrolled in local universities

Punishment and Conviction: On February 7th, 1980, Ted Bundy was sentenced to life imprisonment – as well as the death penalty – to be served in the Starke Correctional Facility, which resides in the State of Florida; he was executed by electrocution on January 24th, 1989

What is the ENRON Corporation?

ENRON was a multinational energy corporation that was founded in Omaha, Nebraska; subsequent to a merger with a Houston-based Energy Company, ENROM moved its headquarters to Houston, Texas. The ENRON Scandal is considered to be amongst the most prolific and widely-recognized examples of financial fraud cases within the history of the United States; the crimes of ENRON involved the defrauding on investors and fellow employees of monetary losses estimated to exceed $72 billion:

Investors in the ENRON Corporation were deceived into the belief that their respective investments were rendering massive amounts of financial gain as a result of the figures illustrated by the fraudulent earnings reports – this is estimated to have contributed to a financial loss exceeding $70 billion

The executives of ENRON illegally obtained these funds in lieu of funneling them back into their rightful place in the corporation’s budget; this not only led to the bankruptcy of the ENRON corporation, but also liquefied pension funding set aside for upwards of 22,000 ENRON employees – this figure is estimated to have exceeded $2 billion

The Case Profile of the ENRON Corporation

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of certain members of the ENRON Corporation, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Foundation of the Corporation: ENRON was founded in Omaha, Nebraska on 1985.

Location of ENRON: Houston, Texas

Date of the Crime: 1985 to 2002

Criminal Charges: Financial Fraud including Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, Embezzlement, False Reporting, Investment Fraud, and Tax Evasion:

Securities Fraud; the production of fraudulent earnings reports reporting deceitful and fallacious figures with regard to gains rendered through investments

Embezzlement; criminal activity that involving the attainment of property, assents, monies, funding, or assets belonging to a business or commercial endeavor through illegal, unlawful, and illicit means as a result of the responsibilities latent within a specific position of administration

Money Laundering; a criminal act of deliberately concealing the nature – or source – of matters involving finance, which can include revenue, income, expenses, investments, and banking

Tax Evasion; the falsification of income and earnings in order to both conceal their earnings, as well as avoid the satisfaction of taxation due

Legal Classification: The ENRON Scandal spanned both Commercial Law and Criminal Law:

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Date of the Trial: Subsequent to an investigation led by the Securities and Exchange Commission between 2001 and 2002, the masterminds of the ENRON scandal were charged and convicted in 2004

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by ENRON; in addition, these case details were made mention within ENRON’s criminal trial:

Ken Lay; Chief Operations Officer of ENRON (1985-2002) – sentenced to a 10 year prison term

Jeff Skilling; Chief Financial Officer of ENRON (1990-2001) – sentenced to a 24 year prison term

The Background of Munn v. Illinois (1877)

The case of Munn v. Illinois was one of the most prominent of the ‘Granger’ cases, which took place during the second half of the 19th century; within these cases, economic and commercial legislation associated with private commercial operations with regard to their susceptibility to the legal jurisdiction of the State government took place – Munn v. Illinois was an appellate hearing following a conviction of the Munn and Scott Firm. Munn and Scott were convicted of violating the laws set forth by the State of Illinois regulating the maximum rates that a private commercial operation would be able to charge for its services; subsequent to the initial guilty verdict, Scott and Munn appealed the decision before the Supreme Court

The Case Profile of Munn v. Illinois

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Munn v. Illinois’:

Date of the Trial: January 14th – 18th, 1877

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by The Scott and Munn Firm against the State of Illinois within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Munn and Scott Firm maintained that the legislature proposed by ‘The Grange’, which was an association of farmers, was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment; this was due to the fact that private enterprise was considered to be separate from State government

United States Reports Case Number: 94 U.S. 113

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 1st, 1877

Legal Venue of Munn v. Illinois: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Morrison Waite

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Munn v. Illinois case:

The Munn and Scott Firm; Plaintiff – Munn v. Illinois

The State of Illinois; Defendant – Munn v. Illinois

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court found the Munn and Scott firm to be guilty of their original conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that private commercial operations presumed to exist in order to benefit the public commercial marketplace were liable to be subject to legislature serving the public interest

Associated Legislation with regard to Munn v. Illinois: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Munn v. Illinois trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Who is Gary Ridgway?

Gary Ridgway is a serial killer who is also known by his moniker ‘The Green River Killer’; Gary Ridgway was a resident in the State of Washington, within which the Green River resides. Gary Ridgway was given his moniker as a result of the discovery of 5 corpses – considered to be victims of Ridgway’s murderous spree – in the Green River. Gary Ridgway’s killing spree is reported as lasting over a decade, taking place within the 1980s and 1990s. Primarily, Gary Ridgway was reported as strangling his victims and disposing of the bodies.

Gary Ridgway Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Gary Ridgway

Date of Birth: Gary Ridgway was born on February 18th, 1949 in Salt Lake City, Utah

Residence: During the time of his killings, Gary Ridgway resided in Kings County in the State of Washington

Year of First Killing: Gary Ridgway’s first murder is reported as involving a 16 year old female victim named Wendy Cofield; she was reported as being strangled. Although no definitive date of her murder was determined, she was reported as missing on July 8th, 1982; he body was discovered on July 15th, 1982.

Year of Apprehension: Gary Ridgway worked at the Kenworth Truck Factory in Renton, Washington; subsequent to his monitoring by law enforcement agents, he was apprehended on November 30th, 2001.

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Gary Ridgway; in addition, these case details were made mention within Gary Ridgway’s criminal trial:

Gary Ridgway was reported as possessing an IQ of 82, which he claimed contributed to difficulties in his schooling; he is reported to not have graduated high school

In his confessions, Gary Ridgway claimed to have been emotionally abused by his mother; he considered his home life and upbringing as extremely destructive and volatile

Gary Ridgway is reported as confessing to more murders that any other serial killer in the history of the United States

Locations of the Murders: Gary Ridgway’s murderous spree took place in both the States of Washington and Oregon

Victims:  Gary Ridgway was charged for the murder of 48 individuals; however, he has been linked to as many as 71 murders – many of the bodies of his victims have never been found

Status as a Serial Killer: Gary Ridgway is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Gary Ridgway was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; this is conjunction to taking a break or ‘rest’ in the interim of his killings and continuing to commit murders

Nature of Victims: Gary Ridgway’s victims were female who were reported as ranging in age from 15 to 31; many of his victims were reported as impoverished runaways or prostitutes

Punishment and Conviction: On November 5th, 2003, Gary Ridgway was convicted of 48 murders; although Gary Ridgway was convicted of 48 murders, he had confessed to upwards of 71 murders. In an attempt to avoid the death penalty, the District Attorney of the State of Washington spared Gary Ridgway of the death penalty in lieu of a full confession. The terms of his punishment did not include the death penalty, but Gary Ridgway was sentenced to life incarceration without the opportunity for parole.

What is a Murder Trial?

Murder Trials are legal proceedings in which the alleged activity involving the murder of one individual at the hands of another individual – or individuals – undergoes judicial review. Within the realm of a murder trial, the classification of murder must present that the suspect partook in the homicide of another individual in an intentional, premeditated, and purposeful fashion; murder trials finding that the suspect acted with the intent to kill may vary with their respective classification of the murder:

Who is Jack Abramoff?

Jack Abramoff is an individual considered to be both an entrepreneur and lobbyist who undertook relations with a wide variety of Congressmen in the United States, such as Bob Ney, J. Steven Griles, and David Safavian; furthermore, Jack Abramoff retained his seat as the Chairman for the College Republican National Committee in the early 1980s. Jack Abramoff’s political ties are presumed to be responsible for his criminal activity, which involved a multitude of political-based corruption and fraud. Although Jack Abramoff was accused of a variety of fraudulent criminal activity, perhaps the most prominent was both his participation and masterminding of fraudulent conspiracy involving the misappropriation of over $85 million in illicit earnings with regard to Native American Gaming Institutions and Casinos:

Jack Abramoff, who acted as a lobbyist for the Native American Gaming Industry, participated in the receipt of illicit and unethical donations and bribes with regard to serving as a proponent for the inception of gaming facilities

Jack Abramoff also enacted a scheme in which millions of dollars were usurped from interest-based earnings rendered from the Native American Gaming Institutions for which he had purportedly served as a lobbyist

The Case Profile of Jack Abramoff

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Jack Abramoff, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: Jack Abramoff was born on February 28th, 1958

Date of the Crime: Jack Abramoff’s many crimes – including lobbyist scandals involving Native American Gaming Institutions and Guam – took place between the 1980s and 2002 upon his apprehension

Criminal Charges: Jack Abramoff was found guilty of the following Financial Fraud:

Conspiracy; the involvement and participation of two or more individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to commit a crime; an individual charged with conspiracy does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to be found guilty

Money Laundering; the deceptive presentation of a source of income in order to conceal its origin

Legal Classification: The domain of both Financial Law and Administrative Law:

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Administrative Law; the legal field in which the interactions between the Federal Government and its citizens are regulated and subject to judicial review and oversight

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Date of the Trial: March of 2006

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Jack Abramoff; in addition, these case details were made mention within Jack Abramoff’s criminal trial:

In addition to Jack Abramoff, a variety of accomplices were indicted with regard to their participation

Jack Abramoff was convicted of Tax Fraud, which is a type of fraud conducted by Jack Abramoff in which illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent activity was undertaken in order to avoid the payment of taxes

Verdict Delivered: Jack Abramoff was found guilty on November 15th, 2006

Punishment and Conviction: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in a minimum security prison camp in Cumberland Maryland; he was released from prison on December 10th, 2010

The Background of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

J.M. Near, a Minnesota resident who undertook the publishing of his newspaper ‘The Saturday Press’ was arrested as a result of the content of his publication, which was presumed to be comprised of racist, prejudiced, and objectionable hate-speech; as a result, he was arrested in accordance with his violation of The Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which was an ordinance passed prohibiting media considered to serve as potential to cause public disturbance and civil disorder; this classification resulted from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota – however, Near dismissed charges that his publication contained any intent of criminal behavior.

The classification of public censorship with regard to necessary or unnecessary censorship exists in tandem with the notion of the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs both in accordance to locale and content

Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm

The Case Profile of Near v. Minnesota

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Near v. Minnesota’:

Date of the Trial: January 30th, 1930

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by J. M. Near – the owner and operator of the publication titled ‘The Saturday Press’ against the State of Minnesota within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

J. M. Near cited that the State of California had violated both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature

As a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression. explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts

United States Reports Case Number: 283 U.S. 697

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 1st, 1931

Legal Venue of Near v. Minnesota: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Near v. Minnesota case:

J. M. Near; Plaintiff – Near v. Minnesota

The State of Minnesota: Defendant – Near v. Minnesota

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, stating that the Minnesota Gag Law was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Near’s sentiments expressed within his publication were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.

Associated Legislation with regard to Near v. Minnesota: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Near v. Minnesota trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘New Jersey v. TLO’:

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the New Jersey v. TLO case:

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age